tony.ar.holmes@bt.com wrote:
Avri
I appreciate you clearly stating what this means for you.
I'm beginning to think it would have been a great help if we'd all written down exactly what we thought the interpretations were before the vote. Maybe then we wouldn't be in this situation!
Unfortunately over the years that the task force has struggled along, positions hardened and as we've seen from recent exchanges on the mailing list even reasoned and rationale dialogue has become difficult. We should all learn from this experience and make sure we don't get in to this situation again.
I struggle with the value of the various interpretations that have been floated by everyone. Indeed, there will always be differing interpretations of anything that gets decided on and written down - this is the very nature of the written word (there are at least four different interpretations of the word "interpreting" for instance - to explain, to conceive, to present meaning, to translate, etc...) I think what we need to focus on is how these words are applied in the context of the rest of the work. Instead of assessing and analysing the range of interpretations that might exist (and explaining how we might agree or disagree with each) let's instead try to come to an agreement how we collectively have chosen to understand these words and what the practical implications of that understanding are. I suppose what I'm saying is that the current focus on the absolute meaning of Formulation #1 as it relates to Formulation #2 isn't really high value work. Instead, I think we need to concentrate our effort on understanding what the implications of Formulation #1 are as it relates to the work ahead of us. If it turns out that Formulation #1 is too broad or too restrictive for our purposes (or becomes out of scope, or irrrelevant, or judicially troublesome) then let's make sure that TF understands that it needs to communicate these challenges back to us so that we can provide them with some reasonable guidance. I don't honestly believe that progress is as hard to come by as some might think. If the task force and its participants can focus on developing a shared view as it relates to the work items TOR, then progress can definitely be made. Regards, -- -ross rader