SUO: RE: Jay's two motions
I agree with Jay that it would be a good idea to have a rejuvenated Policy
and Procedures committee clarify issues like when and what motions are in
and out of order.
Regarding abstentions, my understanding is that the end result of the
appeals process for the SUMO vote, was to uphold the rule that a ballot is
decided on the basis of yes vs. no votes, not counting abstentions. We may
need a statement on this from Jim, to ensure there is common understanding
up front in how votes will be counted in the present ballot for OpenCyc.
I also appreciate Jim's statement:
> > "In the future, I will go to greater lengths to assure ample
> > announcements and time are given before a ballot is released."
While I appreciate this commitment, it's important to get some specifics
published and agreed upon by the group, to ensure we don't encounter another
situation where the chair feels it has allowed ample time, while several
members feel it has not.
Jay's motion did not say what time frames should be specified. Jim responded
suggesting it be sent to a P and P committee. I suggested that if Jim simply
published the specific time frames he would propose, this could allow the
group to form a consensus. On further thought I tend to agree that perhaps
there should be some offline discussion to draft a recommendation, in a P
and P committee.
I interpret Jay's message as saying he is open to withdrawing his motion,
and sending this to a P and P committee -- Jay could you state this
specifically, for the record? We need to ensure that a motion made and
seconded is not left unresolved.
If it goes to a committee, then it should come back as a specific
recommendation, and the group should be allowed to vote on it, to ensure we
have a consensus on what is ample time. Which has the recursive question,
how much time the group should have to discuss and amend the committee's
recommendation before it goes to a vote... Presumably this time frame can
also be suggested by the committee.
Incidentally, it seems that as a general rule, "ample time" for discussion,
revision or withdrawal of a motion before it goes to ballot, should be at
least 4 weeks in this email forum, given the issues that tend to be raised
and the time needed to correspond about them. Perhaps we could have
different time frames for different kinds of motions.
Phil
P.S. Jim, two messages I cc'd to you were returned by Juno...(?)
Recipient address: jim.s3@juno.com
Reason: Rejection greeting returned by server.
Diagnostic code: smtp;550 Access denied
Remote system: dns;mx.boston.juno.com
(TCP|24.153.64.231|62660|64.136.25.17|25) (Access denied)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Halcomb [mailto:jhalcomb8@attbi.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 11:02 PM
> To: Philip Jackson; jim.s3@juno.com
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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
> > >
> > >
>
>
>