[CCWG-ACCT] Mission Statement

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Sat Jan 9 18:46:17 UTC 2016


On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 12:08:32PM -0500, Avri Doria wrote:
> Whether Milton and I, or you and I, ever agree of what is in scope or
> out of scope is irrelevant.  Can we show that the text is equivalent, is
> the question I think needs answering.

Overall, I agree with Avri's view that testing the new text against
past decisions is a good heuristic for checking that the new text
doesn't change the mission.  I would hope, however, that we'd
understand the test such that, if any past decision were not obviously
supported by the new text, the new text would not necessarily be
judged problematic.  After all, the new text is supposed to clarify.
It could be that, at the margins, particularly contentious past cases
would be decided differently with appeal to the new text.  That would
be ok, I think, as long as those cases were the contentious ones.

I'm aware this yields the new problem that we decide what cases are
contentious.  I have no idea how to do that.

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list