SUO: RE: Jay's two motions
Jim,
You wrote, to Jay:
> Regarding your motion that specific time periods be established,
> I feel we can probably agree to explore and resolve this issue without
> taking an email ballot on your specific motion. I suggest we revitalize
> the SUO Policy and Procedures Subgroup and have them develop a proposed
> solution to this issue. Does anyone object?
It's not clear that this issue should be delegated to a committee to resolve
it. In your message titled "In hindsight" you wrote:
"In the future, I will go to greater lengths to assure ample announcements
and time are given before a ballot is released."
This indicates an expeditious approach, if you could affirm to the group
that in future the chair will cite separate, sequential, exact time frames
up front, both for discussion and amendment of proposed ballots, and for
voting on ballots, as Jay earlier outlined:
> > 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 of time: begin X, end Y. Then, unless the motion is withdrawn, a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.
If anyone objects to your stating that the chair will do this, then the
matter could be delegated to the SUO Policy and Procedures Subgroup.
However, it seems likely there may be no objections. Perhaps the only issue
may be what kinds of timeframes are adequate: a statement of planned
timeframes would enable some general group discussion to refine the
timeframes, in advance.
Phil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> jim.s3@juno.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:22 PM
> To: jhalcomb8@attbi.com
> Cc: phil.jackson@computer.org; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: SUO: Jay's two motions
>
>
>
> Jay,
>
> When I said '2-weeks,' I meant the period for voting would be at
> least that long. I ended up giving 3-weeks. Discussions may continue
> during the voting period.
>
> Regarding your motion that specific time periods be established,
> I feel we can probably agree to explore and resolve this issue without
> taking an email ballot on your specific motion. I suggest we revitalize
> the SUO Policy and Procedures Subgroup and have them develop a proposed
> solution to this issue. Does anyone object?
>
> Regarding your motion to reopen discussions of the OPenCyc
> motion, I believe you mean we should cancel the current ballot and revert
> to discussions of the original motion. Since we are currently in the
> middle of the ballot, I blieive (in all due respect) this motion is out
> of order.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 06:59:13 -0700 "Jay Halcomb" <jhalcomb8@attbi.com>
> writes:
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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/.
>