|
Dear
Jim,
You are correct,
whilst people acted as if the SUMO motion had failed, it hadn't,
since
you ruled that it
passed and there is no evidence of a successful appeal.
I have added the
motion and ballot results to the draft resolutions page.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information
Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United
Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email:
matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk
Matthew,
Thank you for sending this
informal objection, because it helps me remember how it played out.
What you cite was not a formal
appeal, so it stood that the motion passed.
Here's some background.
RRO, which all IEEE working
groups except us follow, count only YES and NO votes when determining
majority. Bob Spillers submitted an informal appeal in 2002 and the IEEE
Standards Association overturned the original SUMO vote, directing us to
include ABSTAINS.
Mixed in to this direction were emails quoting laws and policies that
could be interpreted to require we include ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS and perhaps
even ALL VOTING MEMBERS.
But the specific direction was to include ABSTIANS, which is what we are
following, even though no other IEEE organizations were so directed. The
CS SAB Chair, our sponsor, advised me to follow this direction.
Yes, there is confusion, but I strongly suggest we leave things as they
currently are.
Jim
|