Re: Keeping debate in its place so we can actually reach resolution [Was: Re: ]
On 5/20/05, Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2005, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > On 5/19/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote:
> > > You are choosing to post on three different forums. Having made
> > > that choice, it is your obligation to make your comments relevant
> > > to them all; you cannot post on debian-devel, and then insist that
> > > your interlocutors there read a different list.
> >
> > Oh, nuts. I didn't realize this thread was still copied to hell and
> > gone. I'll try to summarize briefly, and would the next person
> > please cut d-d and waste-public off if appropriate?
>
> Can we please try to hold most of these discussions primarily in
> -legal?
I agree entirely. Please review the thread's history:
apparently cross-posted from waste-public to d-d and d-l by one
Mirco Bauer, attracting interest from people who seem not to be
regular d-l readers;
intervention from current d-l participants on the topic of GPL
retraction (certainly relevant to WASTE), followed by a pointed but
polite exchange about "patently false" (my phrase) assertions in the
FSF FAQ;
thread broken by Thomas Bushnell (trashing Subject; I stupidly
assumed he had also narrowed the cross-posting) in order to dispute
things I had written, in apparent ignorance of recent d-l goings-on;
my attempt to refer Thomas to a specific thread from d-l archives,
rebuffed with the above cross assertion that I owed all participants a
summary;
Thomas's and my subsequent conduct, which you may judge for yourself.
> Once we have actually figured out what the primary issue is, and
> understood the ramifications of it, only then should we present a
> cogent, clear analysis of what the actual issue is to upstream, so
> that they can actually deal with it appropriately.
>
> Otherwise, all we're doing is burying upstream (and frankly, -devel)
> under a deluge of material that they could care less about, and
> hurting our chances of eventually resolving the issue (whatever it is)
> appropriately.
You may note that I've usually been the one to prune branches of
threads that were spamming d-d when I noticed them; I don't believe
I've added d-d to any d-l thread recently, and perhaps not ever.
> [Finally, as a major nitpick: Please, please, please, Set a useful
> Topic:. Otherwise it becomes quite impossible to return to these
> threads at any point in the future. Topicless threads are almost as
> bad as threads with a wrong topic.]
Er, talk to TB, who doesn't seem to read d-l. ;-) But I'll try to
fix such things when I notice them. GMail is the only resource I have
handy that can handle the header-forged spam flood that a d-d
subscription invites, and sometimes I miss things in its interface.
Cheers,
- Michael
Reply to: