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

Re: Latest `disputes' draft (#3)

Branden Robinson writes ("Re: Latest `disputes' draft (#3)"):
> This draft appears to have addressed almost none of the issues I raised
> in my feedback to you; not even ones that you explicitly said you'd fix.

Well, perhaps I've addressed them differently to how you were
expecting.  I think that everything that anyone said to me has either
been acted on in a way I thought they'd like, or responded to to
explain why I disagree.  But of course, in anything like this I'm
going to make mistakes.

So I appreciate you helping me out by reminding me of things I said
I'd do but apparently haven't, or of things I seem just to have

Taking your points in slightly different order to in your mail:
>  the language about how people should write documentation that
> doesn't exist to support their arbirtary decision is absent despite the
> fact that you implied that this language was present in your latest
> draft, which you hadn't mailed out yet at the time.

I think you're mistaken.  Take a look at my draft #3, section 4, 3rd
paragraph.  Is this not the kind of thing you wanted ?

> Furthermore, it does not appear that you have addressed Adam Heath's or
> Manoj Srivastava's concerns, either.

I replied to Manoj in some detail.

> I suggest that it's prudent for a "joint recommendation" to represent
> the determinations of more than one individual if one wishes it to gain
> traction.

Absolutely.  That's why I'm discussing it here.  I've had a handful of
pretty positive comments by private mail (ha ha the lurkers support me
in email), which I'm finding encouraging.

> E.g., "flamage" is still misspelled (and the word is still being used),

I'm afraid you haven't convinced me about that, and the other
stylistic questions.  I also don't think they're worth arguing about,
so I'm just going to do what I feel like.  If you think I'm being
arrogant why not organise a campaign to get me to `fix' my idiolect.


PS: I do appreciate your input, despite your (and probably my own!)
frosty tone ...

Reply to: