Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 01:27:23PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Can I too start writing up documents and claim that they ar4e
> joint recommendations of the Technical committee? Since we are no
> longer restricted to technical issues, I have a few choice things to
> say about the dcma, the us senate elections, and a local councilman,
> (not to mention Kashmir and Iraq), and I'd love to have the tech
> ctte seal on these pronouncements.
Yes, of course you can.
Of course, until the committee votes on them, they remain drafts that
have not been approved by the committee.
> And there lies the rub. This is a social problem, and the
> solution must needs be social, not something that no one but you is
> doing.
I think I agree with this.
I think, however, that much of the disagreeing is a result of Branden's
politicing.
Personally, I've not spent enough time reading the details of what
Ian and Branden have said to sort out which way's up. Personally,
I generically approve of the sentiments in Ian's draft. Personally,
I haven't seen anything too outrageous in Branden's objections either
[other than a tendency for Branden to pounce on Ian's statements of
preference about how he'd like to conduct this discussion as if they're
they're heavy-weight MUST/MUST NOT statements].
Which means I've probably not been paying enough attention.
> Ian> I've tried talking to Branden and I've found it unproductive.
> Ian> So, what I ought to do at this point is refer it to the project
> Ian> leadership, but the project leader isn't answering his mail.
>
> So this document's recommended practices are already falling
> flat on their face. Sounds like we need better mechanisms, don't you
> think?
If it's a social issue, mechanisms probably are not the answer.
> Ian> So I'm going to press ahead.
>
> Wonderful. I am in a dispute, I can't work it out, so I'll
> just press on ahead and do what I want. I notice that that is not
> what this document recommends -- so it is do what I say (even though
> it did not work for me), not as I do.
Actually, that's a valid approach -- if you can't figure out what the
problems are, press on, get more objections, and analyze those objections
as well.
Personally, I think it's clear that Branden is upset. Personally, I'm
not clear on what Branden is upset about, but I imagine other people are.
Maybe Ian is now in that set of people (or maybe he will be when he does
his next mail batch).
Maybe I should spend some time figuring what the conflicting goals
are, here? Or perhaps someone else could concisely explain them?
> We nee4d to have a decent document, with input from more than
> one person, to present to a GR. I note that you have ignored most of
> the people with concrete concerns that have actually posted here.
Hmm.. I recall a part of this exchange where Branden objected that one
of his proposed changes had not been included. And then he apologized
for overlooking this change. That indicates to me that this statement
of yours can't be completely true.
FYI,
--
Raul
Reply to: