RE: SUO: Re: Charter vs. Consensus
Eric,
The charter is the equivalent of a research proposal, not
a formal military spec that must be followed down to the
individual line items.
> But back to the charter, there is no definition in MW-3 that
> says that a charter is a new-age feel-good ignorable document.
> RRO-X clearly respects charters as codified consensus.
The charter is indeed a consensus of the broad outlines of
what the project is supposed to accomplish. And as Jim has
said, all three of the documents -- IFF, SUMO, and OpenCyc --
fall within that scope.
But it is not only a waste of time, it is counterproductive
to do legalistic wrangling on issues that cannot be firmly
decided until the project is much closer to completion.
Bottom line: Let's do the real work -- not the legalistic
make work.
John