SUO: Re: Final Procedures Documents
Jim,
I not only objected to your method of counting votes, I asked the
IEEE-SA to enforce the existing rules on how votes are counted. As you
know, they have had to instruct you in how to count votes in the past.
When a chair continually ignores his responsibilities after being
instructed to perform them, the appropriate action is to ask for
enforcement - not appeal. The IEEE-SA agreed, but partially due to past
events in the SUO, they appointed a committee with a broader mandate to
review voting procedures. This took a number of months and resulted in
a notice which you received and passed on to the SUO.
A change was made in IEEE-SA procedures that affected other Working
Groups, however none were made regarding WGs that vote by email. Those
rules that effect our WG have long been in effect (IEEE-SA By-Laws and
NY State law on non-profit organizations) and IEEE-SA Board of Governors
adopted a unanimous resolution that was specifically directed to the SUO
WG. You refused to follow it and you appealed their decision.
Ultimately, you were directed to follow the BoG direction or be removed
as chair.
This matter will be resolved and I believe that once more you will be
directed to count votes properly.
Bob
jim.s3@juno.com wrote:
>Bob,
> Virtually all aspects of an IEEE standards group web site are managed through cooperative agreement amongst stakeholders. When needed, the Chair will make a call. If a major issue, it could be brought to the vote of the full WG, but that would be an extreme measure for an email-based group like SUO.
>
> But let's separate the SUMO ballot results (which you object to)from the what gets posted on the web site.
>
> The only way you could have overturned the SUMO ballot was to have appealed it by the deadlines specified in Roberts Rules of Order (which time has long passed) through proper channels. You objectd at the time but chose not to appeal.
>
>Jim Schoening
>Chair, SUO WG
>
>
>
>
>
>