Disputes document - metaflameage
So, without following up to anything in particular, I'd just like to
say that I'm quite frustrated by what's been going on here. Branden
and Manoj have been telling us at length how high-handed and
undemocratic and otherwise evil I am, when in fact all I've done so
far is post a document for review and comment, and defend it against
some criticisms.
Branden and Manoj can complain until they're blue in the face that
obviously I'm being arrogant and cabalish and what have you by
disagreeing with them on some points, and declining to change my
working draft (and even, in Branden's case, declining to deal with any
more of his dysfunctional flameage). Shock horror, I even admit to
being swayed by private email ! But, it's not their decision. It's
currently my draft, and I'll put what I like in it.
Now, obviously I'm hoping to get it widely accepted and officially
approved somehow, which is why I'm having this whole conversation, and
if and when those disagreements about the contents are still
outstanding when it gets to the point of the draft maybe getting some
kind of official approval, then Branden and Manoj will get their
official input in the usual way, and we can see who wins the vote or
whatever.
BUT, I think the way the discussion so far has been proceeding has
been profoundly pointless - even harmful. Very little has been said
about the actual substantive content of the document at all. We've
had a few exchanges, but nothing like the vigourous discussion that
there ought to be if there are real differences over what should be in
it. The bulk of the conversation has turned into a meta-flamewar,
which just leads to the participants getting angry.
So, Manoj and Branden - and anyone else: if you are serious about your
disagreements about the _content_ of this document, rather than just
wanting to play politics about how it gets written, would you please
try to participate in a constructive way ?
If you disagree totally with my tone, for example, you could write
your own version and we could see which one got more support, or try
to find compromises. If you disagree with individual points, then we
should try to argue them out, and if we can't agree then eventually
someone will end up voting.
If you think the thing should be a GR rather than a resolution of the
tech ctte, then write up your alternative version and when you're
happy it's as good as you're going to get you can propose it and we
can all vote. (I think it's a daft idea to do it as a GR, as I say,
but I'm not stopping you.)
If noone comments substantively on my next draft, which I'm about to
put together and post, then I'll assume that there's nothing much that
can be done to improve it, and I'll just go back to the tech ctte and
see if they want to vote in favour of it.
Ian.
Reply to: