RE: SUO: On the subject of taking votes
Dear Pat,
The general rule in both face-to-face and e-mail discussions is
that silence means consent - or at worst indifference.
The onus is always on objecters to raise their objections - at
least if no-one else does.
I would accept that if issues do not get resolved, a straw pole
might be useful to assess the strength of feeling on a subject.
But I would not consider this a "vote" in any decision making
sense.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Cassidy [mailto:pcassidy@bellatlantic.net]
> Sent: 16 June 2003 22:20
> Cc: 'Standard-Upper-Ontology '
> Subject: Re: SUO: On the subject of taking votes
>
>
>
> In face-to-face meetings on can easily get a feeling
> for how much of a consensus a particular choice may have.
> In this discussion group, where only a few comment
> on any given issue, it is much more of a guessing game.
> If "vote" is a no-no than can anyone suggest how I can
> get a "sense of the committee" on a specific issue,
> such as whether we would want a "spatialLocation"
> to be a "required" or "optional" relation?
>
> Pat
> ==================
>
> Robert Spillers wrote:
> >
> > On the subject of taking votes - having had some experience
> > participating in goal oriented public/professional organizations, I
> > find it unwise to take votes when the outcome is not reasonably
> > predictable. It causes people to argue their positions
> differently and
> > to harden whatever divisiveness already existed. Unless
> the question is
> > trivial (when to return from lunch in face to face
> meetings, etc.) or
> > absolutely necessary, one should not call for a vote
> unless there is
> > reasonable expectation of a large majority. A close vote is
> usually much
> > worse than not taking a vote.
> >
> > Standards organizations require consensus, usually in the
> range of a
> > 75% majority. In practice any significant opposition frequently
> > prevents a proposed standard from being accepted. There
> are of course
> > exceptions, but a "standard" normally is intended to mean
> something that
> > is (or will be) very widely accepted - not just the best technical
> > effort of the group, however diligent they may be.
> >
> > In this Working Group we have had several votes that I regard as
> > unnecessary and divisive. Several years ago I proposed
> that instead of
> > having votes on candidates for starter documents, that we accept any
> > documents offered, without a vote and without any having a
> privileged
> > position. Those documents that people felt were worthwhile would
> > attract volunteers and progress. Less attractive documents would be
> > ignored. When a large majority seems to develop, a vote
> should be held
> > to confirm a consensus.
> >
> > If most members felt confidence in the chair's fairness and
> > impartiality, many actions could be taken by unanimous consent.
> > Unfortunately that is not the case - and yes, I am
> skeptical about this
> > group's ability to produce a standard.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> =============================================
> Patrick Cassidy
>
> MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
> 735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
> Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
>
> internet: cassidy@micra.com
> =============================================
>
>