Re: serious problems with Mr. Troup
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:25:48 +0100 (CET)
"Ingo Juergensmann" <ij@2004.bluespice.org> wrote:
> > In a private followup, Ingo suggested that a big concern was James' lack
> > of communication on the matter, but the quoted "Ingo, I said
> > non-negotiable and I meant it. Either you agree to this, or you don't
> > get any sort of access to ftp-master, period." is pretty clear.
> > Feel free to "address" that as well.
>
> It's not about agreeing to that specific policy, but about how that got
> communicated and how future cooperation with Mr. Troup should look like. When
> he is not willing to cooperate with others (i.e. me, having me in ignore and
> mailfilters), then I feel that it's not worth to agree to that policy because
> the next problem will come sooner or later.
> There's a problem (with Mr. Troup) and it needs to get addressed properly.
I believe James' communication on the matter was more than clear. "Ingo,
I said non-negotiable and I meant it." That was obviously a direct reply
to yourself.
As for communication being initiated by a third party on James' request,
I see no fault in that either. If I ever have serious business to
discuss with somebody I've had friction with, I make an effort to ensure
such past friction won't have any effect on the proceedings. In some
cases that means *everything* being channelled through a third party, in
some cases it means asking a third party to "feel out" the second part
(as you said James had done).
If James finds IRC conversations too stressful and/or time-consuming or
hell, just plain old unpleasant, I also have no objection to putting
certain people on /ignore. The mail filter he's using (at least
according to your post) simply assigns a lower priority to your own
messages. That's rather scarce of details, and I think that without
understanding the entire mail system, it's negligent to assume that it
results in a serious change in one's ability to contact him.
Do you have any better examples, maybe? Admittedly I assumed that you
posted the best supporting evidence of your complaint to d-d-a, but that
might not be a valid assumption.
P.S.: I don't know James, and I'm not defending him. I am, however,
defending *specific examples* of *specific action*. Please understand
that if there's an honest problem, my mind is open to the possibility,
but since I know neither you nor him I can only judge based on what
examples are provided.
Reply to: