Greg,
I believe my other emails outline my issue.
They outline your problem with the @author tag. I don't understand why you
believe that Nicola is sitting around "inventing things to do" or that he
is "pushing you out."
Pushing me out because I thought that Nicola invented the issue. I now
understand that it was a knee-jerk reaction to committer's unilateral
action to purge some @author tags. I stand corrected.
The way I saw it is that Nicola was seeking to wrap up the @author tag
issue [which was started with A-F] rather than inventing stuff. And I
don't see anything that "pushes" a person out. I'm not even sure what that
means, or how it could be done.
No, the A-F @athor chage was capped at just that. It is our principal
art and the thing that just about everyone (sans me) has contributed to.
It was tussled over but accepted. The precedent was not set for a
greater effort.
Could you clarify at all?
Done yet?
He brought up the issue based on some other feedback (incubator) and
previous discussion. He certainly didn't present that as coming from the
PMC chair.
Incubator has little to do withh this community's long established
practice or having @author tags.
Certainly, which is why it was a parenthetical expression. I certainly
would not believe it appropriate to apply incubator-thoughts to another
group.
But you were citing that Nicola had level of involvement there with the
policy declaration (or purge) on @author tags. By citing it there was
an implication that he might have been flushed with sucess and want to
apply the same thing here. I merely picked up on your words. As I say I
now understand that Nicola's action was not invented, but the
consequence of a single committer's unilateral action on further removal
of @athor tags. I apologise to Nicola for the offence caused.
You are wrong on the assertion that
this is a prior discussion. That was concerned our principal art -
Avalon-Framework.
The discussion started out as a suggestion for the whole codebase.
Post-discussion, the only action was only performed on A-F.
So no... my assertion was just fine.
[ http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103800393600001&r=1&w=2 ]
No I don;t see a vote there. I did not contribute to the discussion on
the proposal, but perhaps I should have done, Or at least read all the
posting.
...
Nicola Ken brought something up for clarification. What is the problem?
Why are you attacking as if he is trying to impose some point of view?
Can you explain?
No if I was attacking him, I'd use different teminology. You will find
me striving to use high-esteem terms at all times in this list and
others.
My perception was that you were being quite antagonistic with Ken. I call
that antagonism "attacking". Despite what terminology you used, that is
what you communicated. I'm posting because I don't think the commentary
was appropriate or justified.
Thank you.
-ph
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
