Re: Technical committee resolution
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:17:14 +0200, Josip Rodin <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 04:55:49PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > than to keep arguing subtle points about judgement.
>> Again, your description of your previous posts seems somewhat more
>> flattering than the posts themselves. Subtle points of judgement
>> while continuing to hector away on other people's lack thereof does
>> not seem to fit.
>> I'd be less irritated were your posts less condescending.
> I suppose you could consider my opinions an act of patronizing because
> I was telling you how I think that you should behave (or rather, how I
> think you shouldn't behave). I'm sorry if I offended you, but I
> thought that I didn't cross the line of decency in my posts.
Yup. We have both informed each other that we think the other
should not be behaving in the way they are. Doesn't seem to have any
impact on the bahviours of either of us.
Guess we both like exercises in futility.
> Indeed, it does seem a bit strange to use those terms in this context,
> where me and the person whose idea you attacked are developers with no
> particular elevated position over you, and you are a member of the
> technical committee.
What does my membership in the tech ctte have anything to do
with the price of beans in Idaho? Are you implying that I would abuse
the powers vested in the office in a petty manner? It did not even
occcur to me, and the fact it occurred to you says something.
> Don't you see that your blunt rebuke for the idea can easily be
> understood as condescension, and that, in that light, it would be more
> prudent to avoid the flaming style as well as coarse language?
I called the Idea silly. Still do. I refuse to be censored by
your beliefs, whatever they might be. You certainly are not limiting
your contribution to this discussion; I do not see my tech ctte
membership as a handicap.
> I'm not saying that tech-ctte members shouldn't have the freedom to
> discuss matters on random project mailing lists as they see fit; it
It certainly seems that way to me.
> would be unreasonable to expect them to restrain their right to free
> speech in random discussions just because they happen to be in that
> position. But in a reasonably serious discussion on the composition
> of the same committee, IMHO a bit more tact would be in
> order. Ultimately, for your own sake, certainly not mine...
Err, is that some kind of a threat? Why would increasing my
blood pressure by self censorship be good for my sake? This is puzzling
(and somewhat amusing, I must confess)
Vail's Second Axiom: The amount of work to be done increases in
proportion to the amount of work already completed.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C