Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me
Raul Miller writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me"):
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:09:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I think that would be wrong, to imply that a bunch of people
> > had signed on to the draft document without asking them
>
> I think a lot of the heatedness in this discussion is a reaction to
> implications rather than a reaction to concretely expressed ideas.
Perhaps I can help.
It seems that, despite marking my document DRAFT etc., I've offended
some people by in their view giving the impression that the document
is currently anything more than something I'm working on - with
people's help, of course, but not necessarily their approval.
So, I apologise for giving that mistaken impression. I'd appreciate
it if that apology could be accepted so that we can get on with
talking about what's really important - the substantive content.
Would it help if I put `DRAFT PROPOSED' at the top of my next draft
instead of just `DRAFT' ? Would that make it clear that there is not
(yet, anyway) any formal approval from anyone but me ?
Ian.
Reply to: