Re: SUO: RE: Charter vs. Consensus
Adam,
Then users will have their choice of which (IEEE) standard to use. No
standard at all is better than a bad one - multiple standards are worse.
Bob
Adam Pease wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>