RE: SUO: RE: Conclusion of Vote and Call for Volunteers for Technical Editor
Pat Hayes wrote:
> The problems for me are (1) wasted junk in my mailbox, but more
> seriously (2) a nagging feeling that I'm being conned, to put it
> frankly. Imagine some enthusiastic salesman who keeps telling you to
> just sign this document which looks awfully like a sales agreement.
> He insists it isn't one: he says it doesn't actually mean anything,
> it's just for form's sake, it's a meaningless piece of straw
> documentation, don't worry your head about it, etc. Every time you
> insist on actually looking at what you are supposed to be signing, it
> turns out to be slightly differently worded from the last time you
> looked. You are happy to go on looking at the cars and you do intend
> to buy one, eventually, but you want to take your time and make sure
> you get the one you want. But the guy won't take no for an answer: he
> just keeps on and on insisting that you sign this piece of paper; and
> when you do sign it, you can hardly see his heels for dust as he
> takes it into a room marked 'legal department'.
>
> Wouldnt you be a little suspicious?
>
To try to see things from both points of view:
Imagine you're a car salesman and this extended family of ten very strange
people arrive at your dealership to buy a car. In general they seem
friendly, and eager to buy a car. Soon, however, they start to argue about
what kind of car they want. Then they argue about what a car really is. That
leads to questions about what a wheel is, what a tire is, etc. They start
arguing about whether a car should be viewed as a 4-dimensional entity or a
conjunction of logical predicates like "occurrant" and "continuant". Then
they argue about the nature of existence and reality, the limits of natural
language in describing cars, etc.
From their point of view all these questions are important, and essential to
buying the right car. Yet to the salesman, all hope seems to be lost for
making a sale.
Then, some of the people notice a modest car on your sales lot, and say,
"Hey, why don't we buy that one?" Most of them are either neutral or opposed
to buying it, but there are more in favor than there are against, so you
say, "Why don't you take a test drive and I'll draw up some paperwork, just
in case you decide to go ahead with the purchase?"
Those in favor hop in the car and start taking a test drive, while others
predict they won't make it around the block, and suggest you have acted
unfairly. Maybe you did rush them somewhat, but you tell them they can test
drive more than one car if they want.
==================
In telling the above story I don't wish to diminish the concerns that people
have expressed, or to say that these concerns are invalid. I don't know
enough about the norms for standards development processes to comment either
way, but I do appreciate that several people have become upset and have
expressed some sincere, rational concerns.
My interpretation of the events that have transpired is that Jim has tried
to ensure that SUO makes progress by putting some kind of stake in the
ground with Ian Niles' merged ontology, but there has been a lot of concern
about what kind of stake in the ground it is, and the process for putting it
there.
It seems clear in retrospect that there should be a standard process for
reaching group decisions, published at the SUO website. It seems that much
of the dialog that has occurred has resulted from disagreements about the
norms for the process.
All that being said, I hope that the group can try to mend fences. I hope
the group will continue and allow its work to go forward on multiple avenues
in parallel, with friendly collaboration and dialog between the parallel
efforts.
Phil Jackson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is
limited. Imagination encircles the world." - Einstein
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Disclaimers. www.philjackson.prohosting.com