SUO: Re: Topic :> Definition Of Leadership
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Topic :> Leadership 2. <JA, 09 Dec 2003, 04>
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
JS = Jim Schoening
MW = Matthew West
In: Topic :> Leadership. http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd7.html#11993
Re: Topic :> Leadership 1. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11993.html
WOW. Words Of Wisdom,
On the Subject of Leaders,
Not to Think of their Subjects,
That Being the Normal Course of Course,
Until ...
Go Ask Alice -- Humpty Dumpty is Indisposed.
Exhibit 1.
MW: I think the implicit rule on posting is quite clear:
MW: If you post on average less than one post to this list
per day, then the content can be judged with generosity
as to its relevance. As the number of posts per day rises,
a more stringent quality criterion applies.
MW: I think that is reasonable. If you wish to
play a leading role, you should demonstrate
leading qualities.
I note that the newly issued but always taken for granted implicitly
tacit unwritten rule merely pro formally e-nunciated above depends
for its force, er, cogency on the consensuality of a definition
of Relevance, Remaining At Large, If Not Yet Formally At Issue.
But whose Fault is that?
Or, what Artifact shall
We seek to Blame for it?
VQ. Fetishism (QV), Idolatry (QV), Totemism (QV).
At least we're evolving in our Form Of Government.
Exhibit 2.
Re: Topic :> Issue 7. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11697.html
Copied with each paragraph tagged by its issuer as follows:
JA: I will continue logging the course of this discussion in
a way that its details can be found more easily in future.
I have noticed a tendency in the Leadership of this Group
to ignore what they perhaps regard as uncomfortable Issues.
Still, I believe that it would accord with general Consent:
JA: Duty demands of Leadership that it face less facile Issues.
MW: I have heard no objection to anyone being able
to raise an issue against an SUO deliverable,
so I will update the Procedures document to
reflect this.
JA: Yes, I think this to be the wisest course.
Needless to say, the Procedure document
is itself among the Deliverables.
JA: I remind you that we do not have a Definition of Issue yet.
MW: See the definitions section of Draft 3. There at least
is a definition of Formal Issue, which is the only type
I need to be concerned with at present.
JA: Indeed, we do not even have Consensus on the Principles
that might govern arriving at such a Definition, neither
of the concept of Issue nor of any other Concept or Term.
MW: I have added some notes preceding the definitions section as
to how I am approaching definitions, and what needs defining.
I will expect your comments.
JA: Indeed, my sense is that you continue to ignore the Issues
that I have raised with regard to this Topic, perhaps even
to deny their status as Issues.
MW: I don't think I have been ignoring them, but equally
I am not sure I can make sense of all of them either,
which makes appropriate action difficult. Anyway take
a look at Draft 3 where I have tried to respond as best
I can to the deluge you have subjected me to.
JA: That is, of course, a very Typical pattern of Conduct, but that
does not mean by any means that it should be assented to as Normal,
in effect, capitulated to as the Norm. The Humpty Dumpty Doctrine
notwithstanding, I observe that many people cite H.D. approvingly
without reading far enough to assimilate the Moral of the story.
JA: I advise you that I consider this to be a very serious Matter,
and thus I consider it my Obligation to persist in raising it.
JA: Just a bit of friendly Advice, as I believe
that it will save time in future to address
these Issues at the outset instead of later.
Exhibit 3.
Example Of A Less Facile Issue,
Just In Case You Never Saw One,
So To Do As Leaderslip May Vie:
Re: Topic :> ECORD :> Email 3. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11913.html
Re*Iterated Here, Sorry I Lost Count Of How Many Times Already:
JA to MW wrote:
| I think that it's time that we had a Group-wide up or down
| decision on the substance of the following Bull, nominally
| defining Relevance as the Chair, for now, would define it:
|
| | Subj: SUO: Re: Effective Logical Formalism -- Literature Notes
| | Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 08:01:09 -0400
| | From: Jim Schoening <jim.s3@juno.com>
| | To: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@att.net>
| |
| + Re: ELF Literature 04. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11311.html
| |
| | Jon,
| |
| | Could you help me understand the relevance of these postings
| | to the work of this group. I would define this as "directly
| | relating to any of the three started documents."
| |
| | Taking this posting as an example, I don't see any reference to
| | any of these documents. I don't see any recommended changes to
| | wording of any of the documents.
| |
| | Of course, any advance or consensus in ontology could be shown
| | to be relevant to these documents, but that's unfairly stretching
| | the rule. That approach will never get us to a completed document.
| | Maybe no other approach will either, but that does not justify
| | turning this into a general ontology discussion list.
| |
| | If you have a change you want to propose to a document, you
| | should explain it from the perspective of the document, and
| | you should propose specific wording changes. You can then
| | debate the merits and seek to build consensus. That's how
| | documents are advanced.
| |
| | So, taking this posting as an example,
| | please explain how this relates.
| |
| | Jim Schoening
|
| NB. The required explanation of the cited message is here:
|
| ELF Discussion 04. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11324.html
|
| Now, a few things are abudantly clear to this observer:
|
| 1. The substance of this guidance is de facto null and void in
| this Group, since the vast majority of posters besides those
| who have been working on starter documents -- that is, mostly
| JA and MW since 01 Sep 2003 when we began work on the LIS Doc --
| almost wholly ignore both the letter and the spirit of this
| nominal prescription.
|
| 2. The force of this directive is enforced wholly arbitrarily,
| capriciously, selectively, and unequally by the Chair on
| whatever individuals he chooses to bear the brunt of it,
| and seldom if ever on the more flagrant and notorious
| transgressors of the supposed rule.
|
| 3. There is no good reason for any member to respect
| this rule unless and until the Working Group as
| a whole, by and large, in the majority, most
| of the time, begins to do so.
|
| I think that it would bring about clarity with regard to the norms
| of Posting Policy if this "unwritten rule" that has been unwritten
| by the present Chair were either written down in our constitution,
| as they frequently do in all the more advanced nations these days,
| or else have its sporadic force in this Group formally nullified.
|
| Perhaps you will have some idea of how we might do that
| short of a vote, otherwise I will move that we vote it
| up or down, once and for all.
Otherwise I will move that we vote it up or down, once and for all.
Consider it moved.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o