Re: SUO: OpenCyc Motion
Jim, it looks to me as though the Chair might be in danger of inadvertently
contravening its own edict (the 'at least two weeks'). However, this is
ambiguous - I don't know if the group has officially settled to what extent
voting should be separated from discussion.
To clarify the situation, I will state Phil's recommendations (actually two
of them) as motions. I move, as separate items:
1) That specified time frames henceforth be attached to the announcement of
(separate and consecutive) discussion periods and voting periods.
2) That we reopen discussion of Pierluigi's motion for two weeks, beginning
today.
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Jackson" <phil.jackson@computer.org>
To: "Jay Halcomb" <jhalcomb8@attbi.com>; <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 04:14
Subject: RE: SUO: OpenCyc Motion
>
> Jay makes a good point: there should be specified time frames for
discussing
> and withdrawing or amending motions, in addition to specified time frames
> for voting on motions if they are not withdrawn. Even with such
timeframes,
> not everyone will necessarily agree that a motion is well-stated (and they
> can vote against it if so) but at least this will ensure that people feel
> there is adequate time for discussion.
>
> The actual timeframe in this case was a little more than a week (5/23 -
> 6/1):
>
> 5/23/02 - draft motion from John DeOliveira is posted to SUO
> 5/25/02 - Jim Schoening reposts draft motion, requests suggested changes
> 5/25/02 - concerns about motion stated by Adam Pease
> 5/25/02 - concerns about motion stated by John Sowa
> 5/25/02 - concerns about motion stated by Patrick Cassidy
> 5/26/02 - concerns about motion stated by Jon Awbrey
> 5/26/02 - concerns about motion stated by John Sowa
> 5/31/02 - formal motion made by Pierluigi Miraglia; request for a second
> 6/1/02 - ballot announced for motion by Jim Schoening
> 6/1/02 - concerns about motion stated by Mike Pool
> 6/2/02 - concerns about motion stated by John Sowa
> 6/3/02 - Pierluigi Miraglia responds to Mike Pool, is open to amending
> motion
> 6/3/02 - Pierluigi Miraglia responds to John Sowa's post of 6/1/02
>
> So, I would agree with John Sowa and Jay that we should reopen discussion
of
> Pierluigi's motion. I would recommend that we allow at least another 2
weeks
> to finalize the motion on OpenCyc.
>
> Phil Jackson
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> > [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> > Jay Halcomb
> > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 11:48 PM
> > To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: Re: SUO: OpenCyc Motion
> >
> >
> >
> > I side with John Sowa about this. Jim, you did not attach any precise
time
> > frames in your posts about the balloting on this issue. You said
> > 'soon' and
> > 'may', and (on May 22) 'Please don't cast any votes until the ballot
> > question is posted, after which there will be *at least* 2-weeks
> > to further
> > discuss and cast ballots.' The ballon question was posted May 25.
> >
> > I think it is customary in a rigorous voting process to cite exact time
> > frames up front, such as (Chair):
> >
> > 1) So-and-so has called for a vote upon the motion such-and-such.
> >
> > (Assuming seconding)
> >
> > 2) The chair will now entertain discussion of the motion for the period
of
> > time: begin X, end Y. Then, unless the motion is withdrawn, a
> > vote shall be
> > taken during time: begin X1, end Y1.
> >
> > It is particularly important to attach such time frames to votes
conducted
> > electronically as we do.
> >
> > Jay
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <jim.s3@juno.com>
> > To: <sowa@bestweb.net>; <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
> > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 19:14
> > Subject: Re: SUO: OpenCyc Motion
> >
> >
> > >
> > > John,
> > >
> > > If you want to get technical, indeed Pierluigi did officially
> > > make the motion a short period before the ballot was released.
However,
> > > John DeOliviera did make the original motion a couple weeks ago, and
the
> > > ballot question was posted for review giving plenty of time for review
> > > and comment. There was little or no discussion, so I released the
> > > ballot.
> > >
> > > Pierluigi's motion was only a technicality, since a non-voting
> > > member (John DeOlivieri) can't make a motion.
> > >
> > > The real truth is that this motion didn't get much attention
> > > until people were asked to vote on it, but that's not a reason
> > to restart
> > > a ballot. I could have left the motion and draft ballot open
> > for another
> > > week, but with probably no additional comments.
> > >
> > > Jim Schoening
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 21:32:07 -0400 "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
> > > writes:
> > > > Jim,
> > > >
> > > > What do you mean "a period of discussion"?
> > > >
> > > > There was hardly any discussion at all. Pierluigi submitted the
> > > > motion just before the weekend, we had two notes, and today the
> > > > discussion is closed?
> > > >
> > > > Given the enormous amount of difficulty we have in getting any
> > > > kind of vote reconsidered, this kind of action makes it impossible
> > > > to make reasonable decisions in this forum.
> > > >
> > > > I hereby move that we reopen the discussion on Pierluigi's motion.
> > > >
> > > > John Sowa
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> > > Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> > > Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> > > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>