[alicebot-archcomm] RE: dialogue

[Christopher Fahey [askrom]]

Richard, I'd like to keep our Alicebot AI foundation discussion in the
public sphere: I'm not on the AIML board, I'm just an AIML community
member and I speak only as an AIML community member.

Anyway: Maybe I lack the political skills you have, perhaps I am just
dumb, but I just find it impossible to understand what you're doing
these days. It appears as if you've just set up some kind of puppet AI
Foundation. Who are these people? What kind of process went into their
selection? What made you think that this new board would "go over" well
with the community? 

I'm not going to argue "he said/she said" about the current controversy
because it is sufficiently incomprehensible to me that you would think
that setting up this new board was a good idea. It's as if you don't
"have your finger on the pulse" of what people, particularly those of us
who have been working with the AIML community for a while, have to say
about the controversy. The idea of looking for some kind of consensus
opinion from the community never crossed your mind - you just 'picked'
three strangers to set up a board and you hoped we would recognize it
without question? That's not realistic.

You need to keep in mind that nobody cares about Noel Bush or Richard
Wallace or Chris Fahey - all most of us care about is AIML. Your top
priority should be preventing the whole AIML community from dissolving,
which under the current climate is clearly a real possibility. But IMHO,
your actions don't seem likely to help. To us, the question of who is
morally in the right or wrong isn't the issue. The perception is simply
that there was a 4-to-1 vote and you lost and that you don't like the
outcome. While you may have convinced a handful (not many) people that
the decision was not made fairly, you haven't yet convinced anyone that
the decision to freeze the foundation wasn't correct. If you convince
the world that that 4-to-1 vote to freeze was an "incorrect" vote (not
an just an "unfair" vote, because however screwed up the letter of the
process was, it was pretty clear that the other four members agreed in
spirit to institute the freeze) then perhaps you will gain support for
your new board. Until then, however, you're tilting windmills. 

In light of the controversy, I support the freeze. It's the only
sensible thing to do during a power struggle - cut off the money and
settle it calmly, over time. I doubt you could convince me that it's
better for the survival of AIML to debate the board's issues in public
and to launch a controversial new board in public rather than try to
discuss the issue over the course of another year.


> > > Richard will do battle with this organization or coalition,
claiming
> > > that he owns the acronym AIML and the concepts AIML reflects.
> > 
> > It is in Richard's best interest for #2 to happen.
> 
> Why on Earth would it be in my best interest do battle with any
> organization?

Give me some credit here: it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that when I
wrote "#2" I meant "the second part of #2, where I suggested that
Richard might support an AIML oversight organization  - over which he
has little or even no power but that at least ensures that the AIML
community continues to use and develop AIML - instead of defending his
rights even if it means the breakup of the AIML community"

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong and you'll manage to keep things together.
You're a very surprising person. While I cannot stand behind the "old"
board of directors anymore - since two of them have left and since the
board is officially frozen anyway- I also find it hard to stand behind
your "new" board about whom I know nothing at all. Can you convince me
that I should support them? 

-Cf

[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com