On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 03:04:02AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > Branden [...] > have been telling us at length how high-handed and > undemocratic and otherwise evil I am This assertion is without foundation. I have made no such claim. > Branden [...] can complain [...] that > obviously I'm being arrogant and cabalish This assertion is without foundation. I have made no such claim. > (and even, in Branden's case, declining to deal with any > more of his dysfunctional flameage) Another assertion without foundation. Where did I flame you? I'd humbly like to suggest that putting words into the mouths of others is not the best way to enhance the appeal of one's own position -- at least, not if one holds as valuable the goals stated in the draft. > Shock horror, I even admit to being swayed by private email ! The question I raised was, "should anyone *else* be swayed by private mail to *you*?"[1] > But, it's not their decision. It's currently my draft, and I'll put > what I like in it. In that case, stating that it's from the Technical Committee may be premature. > Very little has been said about the actual substantive content of the > document at all. Quite a bit has been said. That some feedback has been of the nature of grammatical corrections does not mean that other feedback hasn't been raised. In addition to Manoj, Adam Heath, and myself, Scott Dier and Duncan Findlay have raised points about the substantive content. > 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. There are real differences over what should be in it. More than once the issues of whether your draft suggests the right course of action vis a vis closing vs. reopening bug reports, and whether it is ideal to leave out a discussion of bug severities have been raised. You have not, as far as I can tell, substantively rebutted these points, even when they were raised by people other than Manoj or myself.[2] > The bulk of the conversation has turned into a meta-flamewar, which > just leads to the participants getting angry. I have done no flaming. I have expressed disappointment in the employment (in one instance!) of fallacious reasoning, but I have't raised my voice about it, called anyone names, or accused anyone of any failures of character. > 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 ? I have done so. Your consistent response to my discussions of your draft have, of late, been essentially this: I'm not going to reply to the rest of your mail, because I think it'll just generate heat and not light.[3] > 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. I have attempted the latter, but there are certain points you seem to be unwilling to discuss at all. Duncan Findlay's recent mail identified some of these.[4] > 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.) The GR mechanism does have the advantage of being a well-defined alternative mechanism for resolving this problem, if your approach is insufficient to generate consensus. > 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. I would suggest that you address the points you've left undiscussed to date before concluding that no one has commented substantively.[4][5][6] [1] http://people.debian.org/~branden/iwj_disputes_draft_dispute [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200210/msg00104.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200211/msg00052.html [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200211/msg00064.html [5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200210/msg00104.html [6] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200211/msg00068.html -- G. Branden Robinson | Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny Debian GNU/Linux | that reading it will cause an branden@debian.org | aneurysm. This is not that .sig. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpAZJKXOTh_B.pgp
Description: PGP signature