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