Matthew,
OK, I'll ask for enforcement of the By-Laws and the IEEE-SA formal
motion on how votes are counted in the SUO-WG.
Bob
West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
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
|