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

Re: Technical committee resolution

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 13:21:52 -0400, Mike O'Connor <stew@vireo.org> said: 

> On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:43:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:43:47 -0400, Mike O'Connor <stew@vireo.org>
>> said:
>> > I saw multiple people suggesting such limits.  I did NOT see anyone
>> > propose a reason for such a limit other than you who seemed to be
>> > concluding that the reason for a limit was the speed at which
>> > people were performing their job.  I was just proposing an
>> > alternate reason to yours.  If the proposers of such limits had
>> > stated that they think it would aid in the speed at which things
>> > got done, they eluded me.
>> That is not quite right. I have not presumed to know what reasons
>> other people might have had for limits, nor did I propose a rationale
>> for limits; I have merely expressed my opinion about one cause for
>> the deficiencies in the tech ctte's performance. I have suggested
>> that this cause (lack of time pr participation) has an observable
>> metric, and that metric could be used to aid decisions about the
>> composition of the cotte, rather than just setting some arbitrary
>> limits.

> well you clearly stated that you thought the proposal to limit the
> number of hats was silly "Because the number of hats does not seem to
> be a good predictor for performance..."  I was just trying to suggest
> this is not the only reason that one might want to suggest such a
> limit.  You seem to agree that my reason sounds valid, so I guess your
> previous reason for thinking it to be a silly proposal is no longer
> relevant, so we can drop it...

        You evidently have trouble reading what I said. I have never
 ever stated anything about speed, as you quote shows. And then,
 after misreading my stance, you proceed to knock down an  argument never
 made -- in logic, this is known as a strawman.

        When you are ready to talk without logical fallacies like
 strawpersons, get back to me.  At this point, this conversation id
 beginning to degenerate.

>> > Are you implying that my hypothetical shouldn't be advanced here?
>> Having seen no concrete rationale, I have no idea whether your
>> hypothetical has any value or not. Did I not invite you tpo present
>> any supporting arguments?

> You did not.  You invited me to present a well thought out proposal
> that I was ready to defend publicly instead of just a hypothetical,
> which seemed to make me think that you didn't think I should be
> advancing any such hypothetical until I had such a proposal.  Which i
> don't have.  Sorry if I misinterpreted your intentions.

        Indeed. If you want to advance hypotheticals that are not meant
 to advance to a real proposal, I suggest you are wasting people's time.

        I thought you were talking about the proposal when you asked
 about presenting hypotheticals (as in, a specific, even if
 hypothetical, proposal), and whether it should be advanced here: my
 answer to that stands: if a proposition can be defended, feel free to
 propose it.

        If it is mere debating ploy, please take it over to curiosa.


Children are unpredictable.  You never know what inconsistency they're
going to catch you in next. -- Franklin P. Jones
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: