SUO: Re: Jay's two motions
Jim, thank you for this:
> "In the future, I will go to greater lengths to assure ample announcements
> and time are given before a ballot is released."
I agree with Phil that the Policy and Procedures group should do some
homework. We are told that we're supposed to be operating under Robert's
Rules, but there is much in those Rules that don't well suit the smooth
running of this sort of electronic 'meeting', if the aim is at some point to
achieve consensus. Robert's presupposes the notion of a speaker's having the
floor, for instance -- and the precedence and 'orderliness' of motions is
partly determined by this notion. Various motions are in order during
debate, for instance, which are not in order during voting. Clarifying these
matters should materially aid in reducing the wrangling, since it should
reduce at least some grounds for hard feelings.
A request: how about a report from a rejuvenated P and P group on such
matters? Just how are Robert's Rules supposed to apply in this forum --
especially with respect to making motions, debate, and voting, and the
timing of such? Exactly how is a vote tabulated, since there still seems to
be some uncertainty about abstentions?
I don't like to be a stickler about process, but clarity about it is
necessary to build consensus.
I've just been travelling, and away from e-mail. This illustrates again the
difficulties of conducting 'meetings' in this way.
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Jackson" <phil.jackson@computer.org>
To: <jim.s3@juno.com>; <jhalcomb8@attbi.com>
Cc: <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 03:47
Subject: 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
> >
> >