Antone Roundy wrote:
+1.
...oh, and the wording I just suggested for part of PaceTextShouldBeProvided would depend on this also being accepted.
With deep regret, I'm going to express my -1 on PaceOptionalSummary.
Not because I object to the text expressed in the proposal section.
In fact, I clearly do not as I lifted large sections of it to be placed into PaceTextShouldBeProvided.
No, it is because the author of PaceOptionalSummary has made it clear that he interprets the two paces to be incompatible, so each and every +1 for PaceOptionalSummary is a vote against PaceTextShouldNotBeProvided. Despite wording that accompanied several of these +1's, like the wording describe above.
I also feel the need to express deep dismay at the way that author of
PaceOptionalSummary has been pursuing a scorched earth approach whereby
everybody who expresses an opinion to the contrary is viciously attacked
for doing so. I believe that this has significantly hampered the ability of the work group to hold a reasonable discourse on the subject.
Despite this, I have attempted to see if there was some common ground to
be found. I drafted up a Pace, and offered a few suggestions. It has
since become clear to me that PaceOptionalSummary is being pursued in a winner take all manner.
As such, I see no other path than to offer my -1 on the Pace. Face down, arms and legs outstretched, in the middle of the road.
One thing I would like those who advocate PaceOptionalSummary to the exclusion of all other Paces on the subject to consider... what happens if the chairs determine that consensus can't be found on either of these paces? Look at the current wording of draft-08. Is that what you really want?
We can do better.
- Sam Ruby
