Re: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
> You are getting hung up on an irrelevant detail. The
> original version of motion #2 did not mention a registry:
We are not voting on the original version of your motion.
> Now motion #2 proposes that we actually begin the work of
> a community effort rather than several isolated efforts.
Are you referring to SUMO and OpenCyc as isolated efforts in this group? Cycorp
and Teknowledge are not contributing independent efforts to the SUO. They are
not subgroups of this group. Other than that, I concur there has been no common
effort here for a while. I think this is not due to a lack of registry or
fraternization, but to a lack of content.
> To put it bluntly, a vote against motion #2 is, in effect,
> a vote to dissolve the SUO Working Group. If it fails,
Now we are in plain unscrupulous politics. Couldn't you find something more
threatening, like the end of the Western civilization? We would have more
chances to get fundings from the DoD.
I suggest that you wait till the results of the vote and if you are not happy
with the outcome of the vote on your motion then present a motion proposing to
dissolve this group. You might get people to reach a compromise and that would
be good progress, wouldn't it?
> SUMO will go back to being a Teknowledge effort with a few
> volunteers making comments. OpenCyc goes back to a CYc
> effort with a few volunteers making comments.
SUMO is and will ever be a Teknowledge effort and same for Cyc. Incidentally,
you commited another demagogical fallacy in mentioning Cyc and its 19 years of
efforts without reaching the SUO of your dreams. Cycorp is in my understanding
not engaged in constructing an upper-level ontology. It has one which has been
informed by its direct goals and needs.
> And IFF goes
> back to a theoretical effort with no content to work with.
If Motion #1 passes, IFF will have some content to toy with: SUMO's.
If Deo puts up another motion which passes, IFF will have more content to toy
with.
> If you can think of any better way to get the SUO group to
> work together, then please suggest it.
Vote on candidate content, do the part selection you profess. You say a
registry is needed but you seemingly acknowledge that the only thing you want
to do is sorting out content. A task for which building a registry is just
irrelevant and turns out to be time and effort wasting.
> Otherwise, you can
> vote for motion #2 or vote to dissolve the SUO.
Or you can vote no to motion #2, vote yes to motion #1 and adopt SUMO as a
candidate for digestion in this group. Or no to both motions and wait for John
Deo to put up another motion, or make a motion which says that the group will
work on IFF, SUMO, and OpenCyc for a start, and plenty of other things which do
not compromise the integrity of this group.
Pierre
> John
>
>