Re: Disputes between developers - draft guidelines
Branden Robinson writes ("Re: Disputes between developers - draft guidelines"):
...
> 4) "Slanging match" may be a little too colloquial for a formal
> document with an international audience.
How about `shouting match' ?
> 5) I appreciate your willingness to delete the sentence about "go away
> and grow up", but more important to me is the issue of whether you think
> it's sound policy for the Technical Committee to refuse to "grant
> certiorari", if you will, to a developer who is willing to
> constructively discuss a dispute when the person he or she is in
> conflict with isn't.
In direct answer: no, I think it would be an unsound policy. The
Technical Committee would probably be annoyed at the uncooperative
developer, but it should take the `case'.
> 6) The main point behind my edit to the first paragraph of section 4 is
> the notion that there are certain issues that the Technical Committee
> regards as non-justiciable; since the Committee has declined to rule on
> a dispute on that basis at least once in the past, I presume the
> Committee still feels that way. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
> The thrust of section 4 appears to be advice to developers for resolving
> disputes when the TC cannot be involved. If so, I think that should be
> made explicit.
You're right. But, I don't think that needs to be made explicit. If
someone involves the TC and it's clearly a process problem (or just a
tirade of insults) then we can help them through that without having
to formally decide. If a formal decision has to be made, then the TC
can't decide it - we don't have the power to (although if we are clear
on something, we can make a recommendation).
> 7) I could not locate the language "consider writing it" in the draft
> you sent to debian-project.
I haven't sent out my latest draft yet, it'll be out shortly.
> 0) In a document that is supposed to speak for a large collective, I
> think it is important to minimize the number of personal idiosyncrasies
> in spelling, grammar, punctuation, and usage of idioms and
> colloquialisms.
I don't think any of the issues you've raised that I've not addressed
separately make any significant difference to comprehensibility.
Please let me know if you disagree.
> Despite these minor points, I continue to feel that the general tenor of
> your proposed draft is sound, and needed.
Thanks.
Ian.
Reply to: