Re: SUO: Jon Awbrey's Postings
Jim --
My perception is that you are completely off base this time. The only real
work that has been generated on this list in many months is the work that
has been led by Matthew West and Jon Awbrey. Matthew has introduced a
motion that had two parts -- a starter document and a development of a
procedures guide. Virtually everything that Jon has posted has been
directly and energetically aimed at moving those two agenda items forward.
One piece of work that seems to have generated a bit of controversy is the
structural effort that Jon originated to define the terms related to the
procedures guide. His pro forma postings are simply an effort to provide
structure to a multi-subject discussion. The discussion is intrinsically
multi-subject, and within the limitations of the collaborative environment
we have at our disposal, Jon's pro forma makes perfectly rational sense.
There was a time, but it was a long time ago, when Jon's two purposes
seemed to be to promote awareness of C.S. Peirce and to highlight issues of
ontological ambiguity through convoluted punsterism and literary allusions.
Those days are past, and Jon, as he has declared, is actually devoting full
time to trying to make progress on the actual business of this working
group. Jon still engages in colorful and creative use of language, which
as an aficionado of a well-turned phrase I personally quite enjoy, when I
have the time to spend some time on this list. I don't always have the
time, and must occasionally consign Jon's (and John's, and Jay's, and
Tom's, and Chris's, and Richard's, and Murray's, to mention a few recent
contributors) contributions to a "read later" file.
From my perspective there is a certain (now mostly lurking) contingent who
have a knee-jerk reaction to any posting by Jon Awbrey. It's hard for me
to believe that anyone who has complained recently has actually been paying
attention to what has been going on here.
So my response to your questions are:
1. Yes, I think that you as the chairman of this group should applaud Jon
Awbrey for the dedicated service he has performed for this working group
over the last several months, and pay a little closer attention to how this
work has evolved from how it was a couple of years ago.
2. Yes, I object to the fact that the only time we have heard from you in
many months is in regard to acrimonious and punctilious attacks on good
faith efforts to actually make progress on the agenda of this working
group.
Doug McDavid
Almaden Services Research
IBM Academy of Technology
mcdavid@us.ibm.com
ASR - http://www.almaden.ibm.com/asr/
http://www.almaden.ibm.com/coevolution/
BASIS - http://www.research.ibm.com/basis/
jim.s3@juno.com
Sent by: To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordo cc:
mo.ieee.org Subject: SUO: Jon Awbrey's Postings
11/27/2003 08:02 AM
Please respond to jim.s3
SUO WG,
The nature and quantity of Jon Awbrey's postings continue to
generate complaints. And as in the past, he refuses to work with me to
arrive at an acceptable solution.
I feel it is time for me to take further action, but I need some
level of consensus from the group.
Question 1: Is there anyone who feels Jon should be allowed to
continue with the quantity and nature (as demonstrated over the past
couple years) of his postings?
Question 2: Does anyone object to me taking the position with
Jon, "Jon, cooperate with me off-line to resolve the quantity and nature
of your postings or you will be restricted from posting to the SUO list.
(But you will still be able to use the Ontology list, or start your own
list.)"
I'll leave these questions open until at least Tuesday of next
week.
Jim Schoening
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!