Subject: [Json] Quick note / People coming to Berlin?

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:00:13 -0500

Speaking as cognizant AD for this group:

The running discussion over the past 24 hours has been a bit intense for 
me to catch up on. I'm hoping to send a message by EOB today with some 
thoughts. I do not think all hope is lost on doing what this group was 
chartered to do.

A question: Who of this group is going to be at the face-to-face in 
Berlin? I'm a bit worried that we're spinning our wheels because people 
seem to be talking past each other and some face-to-face time might do 
some good.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:57:43 -0400

Pete Resnick scripsit:

> The running discussion over the past 24 hours has been a bit intense
> for me to catch up on. I'm hoping to send a message by EOB today
> with some thoughts. I do not think all hope is lost on doing what
> this group was chartered to do.

Well, one of the chairs has said (albeit while hatless[1]), that the
charter is self-contradictory.  While that may not be the voice of the god
"coming to tell of doom in words like beaten bronze"[2], it's certainly
not encouraging.

[1] <http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuspectIsHatless>

[2] Mary Renault, _The Mask Of Apollo_ (ch. 2)

-- 
The Imperials are decadent, 300 pound   John Cowan <[email-masked]>
free-range chickens (except they have   http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
teeth, arms instead of wings, and
dinosaurlike tails).                        --Elyse Grasso

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 17:53:31 -0500

Speaking again as AD:

On 7/3/13 2:57 PM, John Cowan wrote:

>> with some thoughts.

The chairs and I chatted. I think there's quite a bit of "two ships 
passing in the night" discussion that's going on here on the list, with 
people thinking they are disagreeing but are simply not speaking the 
"same language". I'm working on a series of questions that should 
hopefully clarify where we are on some issues and maybe (just *maybe*) 
lead to consensus. I'm already seeing some movement on the duplicate 
names front that I think will result in a good outcome.

I doubt I'll get to posting my questions tonight, but I'll try to get 
that done over the weekend. As the book says, "Don't panic!"

>> I do not think all hope is lost on doing what

Your humble AD disagrees with the assessment that the charter is somehow 
self-contradictory. I think it is quite plausible to believe that we can 
correct "errors and inconsistencies", but "keep changes to a minimum", 
even when it comes to the string issue. Even if we have to put in a 
significant block of explanatory text in order to do that, I don't think 
we will have violated the dictate of making "minimal changes". And I 
still think that is a plausible outcome.

Stay tuned. Remain calm.

pr

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:56:21 -0700

> "coming to tell of doom in words like beaten bronze"[2], it's certainly

That seems like a lame excuse to be discouraged. It assumes that people will never change their mind. Just because some people on this list say "rejected" and "impossible" and "obvious" and "never" more often than one might hope, we can always change.

In this specific case, I have been convinced that I was wrong since I wrote that. So you can feel free to now all of a sudden to feel encouraged again.

--Paul Hoffman