From: joe@sfbooks.com 
  
 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. 
  
 > I don't know whether Mr.Nygaard believes that the qualification of 
 > metric system also qualifies metric units.  That is, since the metric 
 > system that will be discussed is SI, then the metric units that will 
 > be discussed are those that are not SI. 
  
 I am not, at least, trying to intervene in whatever you and he are 
 discussing.  I long ago lost track of that.  I did think the 
 discussion was getting unnecessarily rancorous, in a way that 
 shouted to me "Where is the proponent?" 
  
 > 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).  Note that in 
 fact I *have* said that I would be happier with a charter that used a 
 clearly-formatted list of sub-topics.  (Ideally with each of those 
 comprehensible as well, rather than the mess the proposed charter ends 
 with.) 
  
 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: 
  
 "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); 
    - 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' ? 
  
 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... 
  
 > >It's probably futile by this point to assume that he's actually 
 > >reading the posts in this thread, but just in case:  People who didn't 
 > >know about your pre-RFD thread have a right to discuss the proposal 
 > >too.  In this case, that includes someone who's defending words I 
 > >wrote, 
  
 Please note that this sub-paragraph is addressed to the proponent, 
 and uses "you" accordingly. 
  
 > > not all of which I'm any longer defending; but the same would 
 > >apply to any number of people who might say "A-OK!" and tell you to 
 > >go with the charter you have.  Point is, it was *your choice* to have 
 > >a long pre-RFD discussion here with the kind of nastiness that's likely 
 > >to entail; nobody forced you into it.  It's also *your choice* whether 
 > >to talk to people your RFD brings out of the woodwork, but they are, 
 > >unlike news.groups regulars, likely to vote on your proposal, so you 
 > >should consider whether that's wise. 
 > 
 > Huh?  I listened to the comments in the pre-discussion.  I read 
 > through the BIPM site and tried to suggest some improved language that 
 > would not be as SI exclusivist (though I don't think that was ever the 
 > proponent's intent).  The proponent did choose to adopt my language. 
  
 Therefore, "you" here also referred to the proponent.  Last time I 
 checked, Jim Riley, *you* were not the proponent (someone named Markus 
 Kuhn is, I believe), and therefore the above remarks were not addressed 
 to you.  All clear? 
  
 Joe Bernstein 
  
 -- 
 Joe Bernstein, writer                                  joe@sfbooks.com 
                   At this address, 
 personal e-mail is welcome, though unsolicited bulk e-mail is unwelcome. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)