Matthew,
Sorry, in my last message I meant to say the correct method of counting
votes is yes > 50% of eligible voters.
Bob
-------- Original Message --------
Matthew,
In previous messages I believe you asserted that the correct method of
counting votes is yes > total eligible voters. If you still
maintain that is the correct method then the SUMO motion failed
regardless of what the chair declared. I note that Jim has not
responded to you about whether or not he accepts your assertions of how
votes should be counted. If I must I will seek enforcement of the
IEEE-SA ruling and the IEEE By-Laws.
Bob
West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
Dear
Bob,
My
understanding is that the motion is passed, because Jim declared it as
such - whatever the rights and wrongs of that - until such time as
there is a successful appeal. The web site merely reflects that state
of affairs.
I
understood you were lodging an appeal, but I am not certain whether it
was lodged formally, or if it was, what the outcome is. The site only
attempts to reflect the current status.
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,
I will reluctantly agree to forgo posting the motions that failed under
Resolutions, but not the inclusion of the second SUMO motion (motion
#2). This motion clearly failed (31 yes votes, 79 eligible voters) and
should not be posted on the web page as passed.
Bob
West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
Dear Jim,
I think we have run out of comments on the proposed web site.
Please would you announce it to the main SUO Group.
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,
I'm OK with latest home page, though it looks like
you accidently un-indented the 4D Ontology. You should call for any
further comments from the P&P Group, then I should probably
announce it to the full group asking for any comments, then you can
post it.
Jim
Dear Jim,
OK, I've done that. See:
However, I would like to retain the last paragraph about the
procedures document, since that is also a piece of work resulting from
a resolution (I've left it in).
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
JimS: I suggest you and I see what we can agree on, run it past
> P&P,
> > then if we feel we have the authority to make the change,
> > we'll make it.
> > I against any SUO votes regarding the web site.
>
> MW: That is fine. I believe I have responded to all the issues you
> have
> raised against the proposed web-site. So I am waiting for your
> further
> review and comments.
JimS: Matthew, You are mixing administrative redesign
with some controversial issues. If you want your redesign to get
posted any time soon, you'll need to remove the issues and deal with
them separately.
JimS: My unresolved comments remain:
1. In left margin, change 'Contributions' to 'Start
Documents.'
2. In main body, replace section on 'Progress' with
exact portion of current web home page as follows:
"Starter Documents being working on by this
Working Group:
Justification: I see little value in changing name
from 'Starter Documents,' plus I see high admin burden of bringing this
issue to the full group. I don't think narrative should be inserted in
this list, plus I see bias in your narrative. As SUO Chair, I can't
permit this, so a simple list is the best way to be fair. I see no
reason why we can't keep the current list.
Jim
|