Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Anthony> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:52:47AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <email@example.com> 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
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
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 <firstname.lastname@example.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