Re: misleading use of d-d-a (was Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment")
Sorry for contributing to a side thread this late. This mail slept in my
drafts folder for several day. Only today I find the time to finish and send it.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:36:31 +0100
MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I think it's uncool to be sending emails to d-d-a with "position statement"
> > in the subject that aren't indicative of a position statement of the
> > project.
> The signatories are clearly named. It is their position and whatever
> the position of the project is has little to do with it.
Yes, the signatories were named. But I think the mail made it easy to
misinterpret it while reading it. The first paragraphs started with:
> After a long and ambivalent discussion during the last weeks the project
> "Dunc Tank" (short DT from now on) has recently started. We consider
> While we disagree with DT for the reasons outlined below, we want to
> With this mail we would like to summarize our thoughts about the DT
The mail started stating some opinions referring to the
group having this opinions with "we". While I would consider this
ambiguous anyway I think it es particular unfortunate on
I did wonder who that "we" might be and scrolled to the bottom after
the second or third "we", then continued reading. Some others might
have stopped reading after some percentage of the mail and might still
have a wrong impression.
Trying to sum this up: This was far from being an abuse of d-d-a. But
the mail could have been much clearer with little effort. I would
beg anyone to consider this when writing position statements which might
Florian Hinzmann private: email@example.com
PGP Key / ID: 1024D/B4071A65
Fingerprint : F9AB 00C1 3E3A 8125 DD3F DF1C DF79 A374 B407 1A65