Hi folks, Just a brief note to those of you who have been following the "disputes resolution" document threads. Ian Jackson sent me an unsolicited private mail a few days ago complaining that he was perceiving an abrasive tone in my messages regarded his draft. After a few private exchanges, he asked me to stop mailing him privately on the subject. He also gave me notice that he would not be paying any further attention to my contributions in the public discussion, and suggested that I would need to find a spokesperson through whom to relay my feedback on the document. (On the lighter side of things, almost as ironic as an unresolvable dispute over a document about resolving disputes is being asked by a person who sends you unsolicited private mails to stop replying to those same mails!) Anyway, Ian has graciously offered permission for me to repost publicly his half of this private email exchange, which will make it possible for people to make up their minds about how reasonable each of us are being. This exchange is available at: <URL:http://people.debian.org/~branden/iwj_disputes_draft_dispute> I personally remain ready to discuss just about anything with Ian in what I regard as a calm and professional manner (look ma, no screaming capital letters, exclamation points, or ad hominem attacks). However, my effort to keep the discussion strictly on a logical and, admittedly, fairly formalized yet candid manner appears to be more than Mr. Jackson is willing to cope with. I will continue to offer my perspectives on the disputes resolution document with the frankness that I have been. Any spectators who happen to share my views may need to make those points independently to Mr. Jackson for him to take them into account, since he has given me notice that my words may be disregarded by him on the grounds of their form rather than their content. While Ian said in his final message to me that he'd rather this whole exchange remained under wraps, I think it's important to the openness that Debian touts. In my opinion, there would have been nothing wrong with Ian complaining about he perceived as my abrasive tone in public in the first place. But the main point I want to make in posting this exchange publicly is to contrast Mr. Jackson's apparent approach to arguments with mine. I think it is important -- *especially* when writing formal documents like joint resolutions -- that one work very hard not to read between the lines when interpreting the communications of those who disagree. While it is not reasonable to expect machine-like, perfect rationality from ourselves every waking moment, I think it is an ideal to which we should aspire when undertaking the weighty role of a representative for many voices, as Ian is doing in this proposed document. Under such circumstances, one must focus on the message and not the messenger as far as one is able. Putting aside my own occasional deep cynicism about politics for a moment, I'd like to believe that the extent to which one can achieve this goal of rising above personalities and perceived careless phraseology, the more successful one will be as a political representative. I guess it is my task to find out which perspective of mine -- the hopeful or the cynical -- hews closer to reality in the Debian Project. Thanks for your time. Shall we get back to the draft? -- G. Branden Robinson | To stay young requires unceasing Debian GNU/Linux | cultivation of the ability to branden@debian.org | unlearn old falsehoods. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
Attachment:
pgpxx4UROt1ha.pgp
Description: PGP signature