Re: Keeping debate in its place so we can actually reach resolution [Was: Re: ]
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 5/20/05, Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
> > Can we please try to hold most of these discussions primarily in
> > -legal?
>
> I agree entirely. Please review the thread's history
The thread's history just shows where the mistakes were introduced,
but the perpetuation of them is primarily the fault of the author of
every subsequent message.[1]
Everyone who replies to a thread needs to be aware of who they're
sending the message out to, and whether the content of the message
really is going to serve the goal which we (hopefully all) share,
resolving the issue(s) in a manner which allows the software to be
included in Debian in compliance with the DFSG.
> > [Please, please, please, Set a useful Topic:.]
>
> Er, talk to TB, who doesn't seem to read d-l.
I'm just talking in general here.[2]
Don Armstrong
1: And I've made more of my fair share of mistakes in perpetuating
pointlessly crossposted threads that just end up confusing hapless
upstreams... *cough* *cough* *mplayer*...
2: The recent influx of thread breaking messages[3] which have made it
almost impossible to follow threads has made me even less tolerant of
messages that break threads and lack subjects... if the discussion is
made that difficult to follow, no one will follow it, and the
participants may as well just be responding privately, because no one
else but the participants in the thread will bother to read it.
3: "Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0+ (Windows/20050224)" and "Internet Mail
Service" need to be taken out and shot.
--
Three little words. (In decending order of importance.)
I
love
you
-- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/graphics/batch35.php
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: