From: jimrtex@pipeline.com
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:44:29 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
wrote:
>In article ,
>Jim Riley wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:27:46 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article ,
>> >Jim Riley wrote:
>
>> But the test that should be made, is whether someone who reads the
>> name or reads the charter fresh will understand what it means.
>
>> In this case, your language reads (paraphrased), "To discuss the
>> metric system and metric units". The latter suggests that discussion
>> of the meter will be on topic. But then one has to wonder why you
>> have to say metric units when the metric system includes the units.
>> If you had to be present during the writing of the charter to
>> understand its meaning, it is not a very good charter. Recall when I
>> asked about the ... and metric units, you wrote:
>>
>> I remember having a specific reason for writing that, but I don't
>> now remember what it was, and I lack time to review the RFD and
>> pre-RFD threads.
>
>OK. Note that I also in the same paragraph gave *two* reasons for
>including them, just the same. 1) Possibility that someone reading
>the charter would think the group *didn't* allow discussion of,
>say, metres, because that's not about the system but about an
>individual unit in the system. 2) Possibility of discussion of
>units not part of any "metric system" to date, but conceived of as
>metric, such as kiloparsec.
1) Maybe we have a different understanding of the word 'system'. I
would think that the 'International System of Units', would include
the units it is a system of. I would think that there would be a
greater possiblity that someone reading the charter would think that
system does include its units, and would either try to guess at some
reason for including the extra text (which *might* lead them to (2)),
or they will just think that it is superfluous.
>> If the discussion of non-SI metric units will be a somewhat minor
>> subtopic, then it is better to cut the charter off after system. And
>> then under a list of potential subtopics, address the issue of other
>> metric units. If you try to apply a different qualifier to units than
>> is applied to system it will make it harder to understand and elevates
>> a minor subtopic to equality with the main topic.
>
>This is a good argument against *my* language (independently of
>whatever it is you and Mr. Nygaard are talking about).
I agree.
>In this case, I might phrase it as follows. The following DOES NOT
>take account of the revision history and therefore DOES NOT include
>all topics already in the charter - I've already been online longer
>this afternoon than I should've been - but for what it's worth:
I think what the proponent wants the topic to be:
SI, but not only SI
Rather than
metric systems, especially SI
>"This newsgroup is for discussion of topics related to the metric
>system. Examples of such topics include:
> - The International System (SI) in relation to older versions of
> metric systems;
> - The SI in relation to other systems of measurement (including
> the process of conversion to SI from other systems);
'conversion' could suggest multiplying inches by 2.54 to convert to
cm, rather than metrication.
> - Units of measurement used in the SI, or in other metric systems,
> or in ways that suggest "metricness" (their theoretical and
> practical definitions, their use, etc.) "
>
>Something like that. The third item is extremely clumsy; it could
>be shortened, perhaps, to something like 'Metric units, whether or
>not a part of the SI' ?
You need examples.
>I dunno. As I said, I don't have lots of time right now. The
>disadvantage of a formatted list is of course the premium it puts
>on conciseness, which has never been one of my strongest points...
--
Jim Riley
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
