Re: SUO: RE: Charter vs. Consensus
Eric,
No one is "censuring" anyone else but I believe that axioms are needed
to meet the charter. You don't. I don't know if you're asserting that
they're not beneficial though so that could still be a reason for choosing
one "charter compliant" offering over another.
I do agree with you that we should have a charter and follow it. I take
much of the controversy in this group to have at its root that different
groups of people have different goals. Rather than impeding each other, I
think it would be much better to codify charters that express the goals of
a small number of groups and then have this group split up, amicably.
Adam
At 12:57 PM 6/25/2003 -0400, 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?
>
>
> > 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