SUO: Re: Charter vs. Consensus
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Eric Peterson wrote:
>
> > -----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?
That would be silly. I am merely pointing out the obvious fact that codes
are subject to interpretation, and governance is, by etymology, cybernetic.
In the US, we have a wing of government dedicated to interpretation -- it's
a right wing only right now, but so it goes.
> > 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 that 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.
You oversimply the nature of the prospective
compatibility between democracy and inquiry.
> 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.
That's another thread, that I'm not tangling in right now.
Here I was merely following up on Jim's lead to suggest
a critical reflective dialogue on the nature of
different ways of moving from dis- to con-
sensus.
> 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.
I called for nothing novel but critical reflection.
> BTW, where are you getting the "F"-word from in your last paragraph?
> A charter is consensus and far from force.
A charter is nothing at all until interpreted and implemented,
and both interpretation and implementation are actualized at
the risk of undue forcing in the process of being enforced.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o