[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> a tapoté :

> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:24:00PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > I think that Richard addressed already several of the recurrent
> > questions from debian-legal. Can we move forward in this direction?
> > 
> > Which question is left?
> Why don't you review the mail I sent and see for yourself?

This is the conclusions of the last mails I got from you on the list:

        Fri, 5 Sep 2003 01:41:48 -0500

        "One last question for now: since I do not want to leap to any
        conclusions, how am I to interpret your recent (but
        consistent) practice of no longer responding directly to my
        mails, but instead mentioning them only by reference, and
        speaking to me only in the third person?"

        Wed, 3 Sep 2003 14:21:12 -0500

        "Are you to be the sole arbiter of whether that additional
        information is useful or not?


        What's your definition of "harsh treatment"?  Do you think
        there is an objective one upon which both the FSF and the
        Debian Project can agree, or do you reserve the right to be
        the lone applicator of this term?"

I think it perfectly illustrates what kind of debate seems sterile to
me. I do not think that attacks ad hominem can help when the situation
is already problematic. 

Instead of asking someone to justify his feelings, propose
something. For instance, in the last part I quoted, instead of
discussing whether you're were harsh or not, whether Richard was right
to thinks your treatment harsh or not, why don't you just tell if you
think "there is an objective one upon which both the FSF and the
Debian Project can agree"?

The reply you sent to me is also harsh to me. I asked "Which question
is left?" and you replied "Why don't you review the mail I sent and
see for yourself?".

        - it does not at all answer to the question
        - it proposes an obvious, non-constructive, solution
        - proposing an obvious solution to someone is almost calling
        him a fool

If I asked "Which question is left", it was not to go backward and
continue discussing in the spirit of your mail exhange with
Richard. So, on purpose, I asked "Which question is left" in the light
of what I said.  

So now, please, Branden, try to speak about  'what you feel for
yourself', 'what you want to do'. But if you continue to speak about
'how this persons looks into your eyes', 'how this person is fair or
unfair', Richard will not be the only one disregarding your mails.  

Now it's me that ended to speak about you and not the ideas
expressed. That's the problem, when someone misbehave (by talking of
persons instead of ideas), you have only two options: ignore him (what
Richard do), reply to him by misbehaving in the same way (what I've
just done). 

If the situation cannot be changed, the only sensible solution is to
ignore you, which would be a pity because, usually, when there no
emotional messing, I think you provide very interesting input.


Mathieu Roy
  Not a native english speaker: 

Reply to: