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

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 05:37:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I think, however, that much of the disagreeing is a result of Branden's
> politicing.

In what way have I been politicking?

I made a number of suggestions in response Ian's first proposed draft --
some of which he incoporated, some he rejected, and others which he
disregarded entirely.

On multiple occasions I explicitly thanked him for undertaking this
effort and expressed my support of the intent of the document.[1][2][3]

> 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].

Ian stated pretty categorically that he wasn't going to listen to me

> Which means I've probably not been paying enough attention.

That you "haven't seen anything too outrageous in Branden's objections
either...means [you've] probably not been paying enough attention."?

Isn't that the sort of personal attack ("if I can't find something
outrageous in what Branden said, I must not be looking hard enough")
that Ian's draft urges us to avoid?

> If it's a social issue, mechanisms probably are not the answer.

I'm not sure I agree; one definition of etiquette is an arrangement of
(largely arbitrary) mechanisms designed to smooth social interactions.

> 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.

True, but I'd suggest that it may not be the best approach when one of
the participants says thinks like "I'm going to protect my sanity (I
mean that quite literally) by trying to ignore you".[4]

> Personally, I think it's clear that Branden is upset.

Not particularly.  I little surprised at some of the turns of events,
but the U.S. election has me much more distressed than this document
does.  I've been quite happily hacking on xdm the past few evenings, so
this business can't have been disrupting my life *too* much.  :)

> Personally, I'm not clear on what Branden is upset about,

Isn't it a little hasty to conclude that someone's upset if you can't
even tell what they're upset about?  Where in my messages can you find
profanities, screaming capital letters, and personal attacks that would,
for practically anyone, be generally reliable indicia of a state of
agitation even in the absence of a clear cause?

Isn't it it possible that you're just *assuming* I'm upset?  (I am
working under the assumption that it is possible to disagree with parts
of Ian's draft without that fact by definition making me "upset", but if
that's what it means to you, please let me know.)

> Maybe I should spend some time figuring what the conflicting goals
> are, here?  Or perhaps someone else could concisely explain them?

As the author of the document, it might be educational if Ian were to
offer us some insight into some specific long-term factors that have
prompted him to feel the need to draft this document, as well as some
specific short-term recent developments that may have prompted him to
feel that now is a good time to pursue the matter.

> > 	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.

I don't see how.

Manoj said "I note that you have ignored most of the people with
concrete concerns that have actually posted here."

Ian is on the record that he'll be trying to ignore me.  There are
other people who have raised issues that Ian has not, apparently,
addressed yet[5][6][7].

In short, you're talking about issues, and Manoj is talking about

As an aside, would you have preferred I not have apologized for my
oversight?  If I hadn't, would that have been evidence for or against
your accusation that I am "politicking"?

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200210/msg00061.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200210/msg00066.html
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200210/msg00107.html
[4] http://people.debian.org/~branden/iwj_disputes_draft_dispute
[5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200211/msg00064.html
[6] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200210/msg00104.html
[7] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200211/msg00068.html

G. Branden Robinson                |    I've made up my mind.  Don't try to
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    confuse me with the facts.
branden@debian.org                 |    -- Indiana Senator Earl Landgrebe
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgp0DXXXTgXdg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: