On Sep 3, 2009, at 19:17, Mark Martin wrote > In this recent "storm", several issues were raised with the very > same group, and from at least my point of view, had direct impact on > my ability to contribute. Regardless of the outcome, I believe I > had a right to seek clarity on the issue. Again, I was not along in > voicing the concern. And again, you used an idiom which suggests > that a big deal was made out of a trivial matter. > > The message I am receiving is that, at least with matters concerning > the website group, I can expect to receive comments from you that > indicate you believe the matters are trivial, and that many of us > simply tempest brewing. I'd explain further what other messages I > think that sends, but I'd probably just use idiomatic language and > you're insisting on precise explanations.
As well as taking offence unnecessarily at the earlier conversations (which I don't intend to revisit), I think you are failing to see the big picture of this discussion. Note that my comment was not addressed to the website-discuss list. The "storm" I am referring to was the OGB's extended discussion of the matter over many weeks rather anything that happened on website-discuss; no value judgement of the issue itself was implied and I'm surprised and worried that you read one as existing. When the OGB finally got everyone together after vacations and missed points, the issue turned out to be that the website team, having been forced to hurriedly refactor the new web infrastructure because the new constitution was not approved, chose labels for certain functions that were not appropriate. Once this was understood, the matter was quickly and easily resolved and it turned out there was no conspiracy. My comment, referring to the handling of the constitution, was that this matter would not have arisen if the OGB had handled the matter of the constitution straight away and that we will avoid other similar time-sinks most effectively by getting the new constitution in place. S.
