[ms@ms.lt: [xtm-wg] Re: Agenda for Dallas]

["Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@coolheads.com>]

[Andrius Kulikauskas:]
> I agree, in spirit, with Steve's agenda.  But I think that having
> one day each for ISS and CMS will not be most productive.  It's hard
> for people to "sit on their hands" all day and not present their own
> point of view, especially when it's relevant.  But jumping in on
> details, before presenting the big picture, is a tremendous waste of
> energy.  It also wastes energy whenever trying to relate with, or
> reword, or rethink, another point of view is interpreted as a
> challenge to that point of view, as a rejection or refutation (the
> two are both important, but very different, and it's awful to
> confuse them).  As an alternative, I propose:

> Day 1:  Half day each to the current members of the CMS working group,
> and the ISS working gropu, can present their results, and the
> outstanding issues.  The CMS presentation in Montreal was great.

> Day 2: Half day each so that All of us can think from the CMS point of
> view, and from the ISS point of view, so that we understand their points
> of view, are sympathetic to them, and build on them to resolve issues.

> Day 3: We forget about the CMS and ISS distinction, and think as one big
> group to resolve all outstanding issues.

> This is the same in spirit, but I think better prepares us for Day 3,
> which is a very important and difficult day.

> What do you think?

The first agenda item will be the lunch arrangements, because if it
isn't, there will be no lunch.

I guess the second agenda item is the agenda, since Andrius wants it
to be done differently than I suggested.  He has a good point.  I
think he's right that it would be better to get the whole picture
before delving into it more deeply.

However, what constitutes the whole picture, and how to get it, is the
real issue here.  Andrius's proposal is good, but mine, in which there
is one whole day devoted to each of the two models, is better.  Here's
why I think so.

I do not believe we will all "get" either model in only half a day of
discussion.  What we face here is a mutual language-acquisition
problem.  The most efficient language-acquisition technique is
immersion.  The immersion technique of language acquisition is to
prohibit discourse in any language other than the language that is to
be acquired.  If you can't ask a question using the language you're
attempting to acquire, that's good: learn the language, so you can ask
the question.  That may involve asking a lot of other questions.
That's good, too.  It's all language-acquisition.

I want everyone to become fully immersed in the universe of discourse
of each group.  If we don't fully have the jargon of each model firmly
in our minds, we will *certainly* talk right past each other, as we
have often done in the past, and the meeting will not result in a
united intent -- disaster.  It's a disaster that can only be avoided
by the serious, hard work of careful listening and accurate language
acquisition.  Yes, learning involves a lot of "sitting on your hands"
and keeping your mouth shut.  It's the most challenging sitting you'll
ever do.  I don't want questions about how the two models should be
married up, or even about how the two universes of discourse map to
one another, to be asked until both models have fully sunk into each
and every brain in the room.  In other words, enjoy the fucking, and
save the orgasm for the end.

During the first two days, I don't want to permit questions about one
model to be posed in terms of the other model.  Everybody must become
bilingual.  Half a day isn't going to provide enough immersion.  It's
going to take half a day just to be able to learn the terminology of a
model, before the deep questions can even be asked in the terms of
that model.  For each of us to learn and use the other model's jargon
is also a powerful gesture of mutual respect.  It's important, and it
is not a waste of time.  It's what we're there to do.

Furthermore, I believe that we need to understand what's wrong with or
weak about each model, in its own terms.  A half-day overview will not
give us that level of insight.  I want to bring out and make visible
the residual concerns of the individuals in each group, and I want to
have the time to do that while we're still all immersed in that
group's model.

Therefore, I greatly prefer the "one day, one model" approach, because
it's vital to get everyone's head fully around each separate model.
And I don't want anyone to be worrying about what they're going to say
about their own model, unless it happens to be their model's day in
the sun.  I want everyone to be thinking about the model that's
currently on the table, at all times.

But it doesn't matter what I want, except as a Participating Member.
The Participating Members control the agenda, here.  So, I guess we'll
begin by deciding the question of the interaction between the agenda
and the schedule.  Anyway, now you know how I will argue for the
"one model, one full day" approach.

-Steve

--
Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
srn@coolheads.com

voice: +1 972 359 8160
fax:   +1 972 359 0270

405 Flagler Court
Allen, Texas 75013-2821 USA

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com