Re: SUO: Unanimous consent
Robert Spillers wrote:
>
> SUO
> I move that Matthew West's motion be accepted by unanimous consent.
>
I object. What's going on in this group? We just had two years of long and
exhausting battles for voting on a couple of proposals which were granted
examination under very stringent conditions.
With all due respect, it is not clear whether Matthew's motion fit requirements
previously imposed and I see no reason why we should weaken the process
_prior_to_ examination of the material. From what I have seen, the porposal
concerns a very small ontology which mostly stands as a strcutured vocabulary
with some taxonomic constraints. It's actually a browsable glossary.
I remember some very harsh words from different parties concerning the need of
axioms for an ontology. This porposal does not fit the bill.
Moreover, although it is interesting to have a 4d ontology, it is yet unclear
to me how this particular porposal does justice to this paradigm.
I request due time for examination (and two weeks is not long!) and that
procedural issues be put aside during that time. We examine the work, we
discuss and we cast motivated votes. This process may seem heavy but it may be
the only feature of this group which comes close to the activity of a working
group.
Pierre