[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

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

 Anthony> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:52:47AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 >> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
 >> When I read a draft with a bunch of co-authors names on the
 >> authors list, I do tend to assume that the co-authors have signed on
 >> to the document.

 Anthony> *shrug* Your assumption was wrong: both in that people
 Anthony> hadn't signed on, and in that it was never meant to be taken
 Anthony> that way.

	Sorry , you have no idea what you are talking about. The first
 the document saw the light of day was on project; no one had signed
 on to it.

	Secondly, you seem bent on ignoring the effect of having
 influential people on your proposal; there is a definite impact on
 the reader; and in this case I think it was a misrepresntation. 

 Anthony> For comparison, when someone proposes a general resolution,
 Anthony> it takes the form "The Debian Project resolves to...", even
 Anthony> before everyone in the project has had any chance to comment
 Anthony> at all, let alone agree. The group that's going to issue a
 Anthony> recommendation/whatever and the authors aren't necessarily
 Anthony> one and the same.

	To point out the glaring flaw in the above argument; the
 proposal is submitted to the membership at large; it is perfectly
 reasonable to have that preamble: we know we have not yet agreed to

	Had this draft been presented to the tech ctte first, it would
 not have been a misreprestnation: The ctte knows well it was not
 asked yet.

 Anthony> I'm not sure why you're making such a big deal over this;
 Anthony> it's not like it was posted to -announce, or claimed it was
 Anthony> in any way official, or, well, anything. It was a draft:
 Anthony> working out the appropriate group to issue it is up for
 Anthony> comment just as much as anything else in it.

	Becaue I feel calling it a joint representation by a bunch of
 people who were not even aware of the document is dishonest. Even if
 it was a draft document, presenting it to the world with the implied
 imprimatur of people who were not even aware of the existence of this
 document is wrong.

 Anthony> There're plenty of things that're worth getting hysterical
 Anthony> about (eg, that we have 20,000 open bugs), surely confusion
 Anthony> over the authorship of some draft guidelines isn't one of
 Anthony> them?

	Is the number of things one is permitted to be concerned about
 a 0 sum game now? I can no longer be concerned about something since
 I have used up my quota? I understand as RM you are trying to move
 the bugs into a closed stare, but this is the weirdest argument I
 have heard in a while.


 user, n.: The word computer professionals use when they mean "idiot."
 Dave Barry, "Claw Your Way to the Top" [I always thought "computer
 professional" was the phrase hackers used when they meant "idiot."
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: