RE: SUO: OpenCyc Motion
I second the two motions by Jay.
Phil Jackson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Halcomb [mailto:jhalcomb8@attbi.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:59 AM
> To: Philip Jackson; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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 for voting on motions if they are not withdrawn.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/.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>