SUO: RE: Charter vs. Consensus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 11:01 AM
> To: Eric Peterson
> Cc: jim.s3@juno.com; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: Charter vs. Consensus
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> Eric,
>
> This brings up yet another facet of the objective of achieving
consensus,
> as it begins from a state of disconsensus, namely, that many of the
words
> and phrases of the charter, or scope and purpose document, have just
as
> many different ways of being read from different perspectives in this
> (dis-)community as any of the other words and phrases that we have
> to discuss in the content-oriented and method-oriented subtasks.
[ELP] Language can be tightened down. Clarity can certainly be an
iterative process sometimes.
> And though referring to the prior compact certainly helps to
> reduce uncertainty from time to time, it cannot, in the
> absence of consensual interpretations, achiving which
> is a part of the original problem, reduce it all that
> much, nor ever absolutely, when it comes to that.
[ELP] Aren't you arguing against all codified law and governance?
> All subcommunities, some of the time, and some
> subcommunities, all of the time, would like
> to appoint themselves the sole-sufficient
> interpreters of the charter, but there
> is no reason to expect that they will
> happen in a free and open society.
[ELP] If it is a point that really matters, we can vote on it. And all
our votes need to be reflected somewhere.
But when calling for concreteness and specificity in criticisms of Cyc,
I was expecting references to more ontologically egregious sins than not
having SUMO's way-cool axioms.
With Adam, I was simply making the observation that it didn't seem fair
to me to publicly censure Cycorp for being charter compliant under a
reasonable interpretation of the Charter. I certainly wasn't attempting
to Mirandize him prior to incarceration.
>
> So what Jim said initially continues to be apt.
> The question that remains is how to achieve this
> consensus in a way that is genuine and not forced.
[ELP] Jon, you seem to want to reinvent long-standing methods of
committee organization. I don't have time to read your papers on
consensus building. I prefer starting with Roberts and fixing it when
it breaks. That is already our de facto practice.
BTW, where are you getting the "F"-word from in your last paragraph? A
charter is consensus and far from force.
FWIW,
-Eric
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> Eric Peterson wrote:
> >
> > Moreover,
> >
> > I was told that the charter was a passed motion. If so, it is
binding
> > and is amendable only by a 2/3 majority (RRO 10th Edition p. 12,
line
> 25).
> >
> > > -----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