SUO: Re: Charter vs. Consensus
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Eric,
You have articulated one model for a consensus-forming process.
I'm not clear about all of the details yet, so perhaps further
articulation will be necessary. For the time being, I will
tentatively enter your model into my own personal registry
under this designation:
Model 1. The Invisible Hand On The Shepherd's Crook.
Subscriber 1.1. Eric Peterson.
You are, of course, invited to make up your own name for
the purposes of entry into your own personal registry.
We can discuss at a later date how to reconcile the
multiple registries that will no doubt accrue.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Eric Peterson wrote:
>
> Hi Jim
>
> It seems to me that true consensus easily changes charters.
> Let's not make some pretense of being non-anarchical by
> appealing to Roberts, and IEEE rulings if we are going
> to flout the charter.
>
> MW-3 suggests that a charter is a constitution or contract.
>
> The charter codifies consensus and can be used as a shepherds crook
> for keeping us focused and proceeding vaguely in the same direction.
>
> YMMV,
>
> -Eric
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jim.s3@juno.com [mailto:jim.s3@juno.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6:54 AM
> > To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: SUO: Charter vs. Consensus
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Consensus is what matters. The PAR Scope and Purpose really doesn't
> > matter that much. It shouldn't prevent us from doing anything, or
> > force us to do anything else. If and when we> finish a document
> > with enough consensus to pass an IEEE ballot, if it doesn't
> > match the Scope and Purpose, we simple amend it or submit
> > a new one.
> >
> > Jim
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o