I noticed one clause in this draft with which I differ for reasons
which are perhaps philosophical. It has to do with how we arrive at
working standards.
Section 1.2 starts with the following note. In the note I have raised
the clause which I question to uppercase.
"This document is the work of a single person,
about a topic with considerable diversity of
views. It is certain to be incomplete and
inaccurate. Some errors simply need to be
reported; they will get fixed. Others need to
be discussed by the community, because THE REAL
REQUIREMENT IS TO DEVELOP COMMON COMMUNITY VIEWS.
To this end, please treat the draft as a
touchstone for public discussion."
I question the notion that there is a requirement to develop common
community views. Now I do believe there is value in community
discussion, and perhaps the best of all worlds can result when common
community views can develop. But realistically it seems to me that
our numerous human projects are like the numerous species that try to
survive in a given ecology. The fittest survive, and generally not
because common community views were formed, but often for reasons we
dislike or find difficult to comprehend.
I might suggest changing that clause to say something like:
- so that we can learn from each other;
- so that we can work toward consensus; or
- so that we can avoid mistakes.
Rich Hammer
resume at: <http://trilug.org/~rh/resume.html>