apologies for the follow-up email. I pressed send too early Kevin said:
"Sorry but I am -1000. This is a very bad idea." that to me is the antithesis of "yes, and..." I was trying to pull the idea back by putting it into context and setting some things straight so, in context, even more strange, that I'm the one you pick on (with words like "very aggressive", to boot!) On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 10:00, Naomi S <[email protected]> wrote: > Kevin misunderstood the suggestion. I was correcting him > > given the conduct of some people on these lists, Greg, I find it > interesting you've chosen to chastise *me* for the second time > > On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 08:50, Greg Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > >> For somebody quoting "yes, and...", the response below is very >> aggressive towards Kevin's opinions. Where is the "yes, and..." in >> this reply to create an inclusive atmosphere on this mailing list? >> >> -g >> >> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 03:19:07PM +0200, Naomi S wrote: >> > On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 15:01, Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > - It sets up the precedence that every hard decision will wait a year >> > > for a member referendum >> > > >> > >> > no, it doesn't. I'm saying we might want to wait an additional year >> > because we, as a committee, have not ourselves decided what we want to >> do >> > yet >> > >> > - It insults the sitting board that they can't make a tough decision. >> > > >> > >> > not, it doesn't. it would be the board who ultimately rubber stamp the >> idea >> > to poll the membership. the D&I committee certainly has no power to >> enact >> > such a thing. we would be suggesting this to the board as a possible way >> > forward, and they can tell us whether they deem it prudent/necessary >> should >> > the situation come to pass >> > >> > - It infers the need to circumvent a possible negative board decisions >> > > and instead go to the members to "overrule" them either retro- or >> > > proactively. >> > > >> > >> > see above >> > >> > >> > > - In the lawyer world there is a quote, never ask a question you don't >> > > know the answer to. This is a massive gamble. >> > > >> > >> > what are we gambling? as in, what do we lose? the current situation, it >> > seems is, we won't fund Outreachy. if we ask and the board or the >> > membership and there is a decision to maintain the status quo, nothing >> has >> > changed and nothing has been lost >> > >> > conversely, if we don't ask, we get the same outcome. so we have >> everything >> > to gain and nothing to lose >> > >> > >> > > - I predict this particular topic of effectively paying for code will >> > > create partisan divisions with our members who are likely to >> vehemently >> > > disagree/agree >> > > >> > >> > same is true for any tough decision. but that doesn't mean we should >> avoid >> > making tough decisions >> >
