|
Dear
Bob,
I have had
offline discussions with Jim on this subject. I have even read the Technowledge
legal opinion.
My reading is
that we are a committee of the IEEE, and therefore are bound by the IEEE Bylaws
on voting. These include that for face-to-face meetings that a motion passes
when yes > 50% of those present and entitled to vote, and for a letter or
e-mail ballot, yes > 50% of those entitled to vote.
Jim's current
position is that he has been instructed to use yes > 50% of those voting, and
he will do this until a decision he makes on the outcome of a ballot is
successfullly appealed.
I have suggested
to Jim that the best way forward is for him to ask for confirmation or
clarification on the previous paragraph. The key issue is whether we count as a
committee of the IEEE. If we do, then the IEEE Bylaws on voting clearly apply.
If not, then the current situation applies.
In the mean time,
Jim has declared that the last SUMO vote passed, and as yet we do not have a
successful appeal of that declaration, and it doesn't matter if I think that is
right or wrong.
For myself I see
this as a formal issue. I have no special preference of the current voting
method over the one in the Bylaws for letter/e-mail ballots. What does concern
me is that much of our work could be questioned or even invalidated if we use
the wrong method for counting votes.
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,
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
|