On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 05:04, Andrew Ho wrote: > Maybe that's why we disagree. Maybe you and Adrian want OpenHealth to be > a "showcase" to decision makers for how we all work "nicely" together - > and airing disagreements just aren't "nice" by your definition.
I also think that Openhealth, or new-Openhealth (working name for the proposed successor to the Openhealth list) **should** be a showcase for the way in which people engaged in with open source software in health can work together **productively**. No-one cares much about "nicely", although observation of certain social conventions such as basic politeness (no criticism of anyone in particular intended) does contribute to productivity. Disagreements and frank, robust discussion surrounding them are an important aspect of such "productivity", but there are limits and in some cases, such discussions are best taken into a "side room", which is open to anyone and everyone should they wish to enter. But such discussions should not be stifled or prevented, no matter how arcane or tedious they become for non-participants (and quite often, I suspect, the participants). -- Tim C PGP/GnuPG Key 1024D/EAF993D0 available from keyservers everywhere or at http://members.optushome.com.au/tchur/pubkey.asc Key fingerprint = 8C22 BF76 33BA B3B5 1D5B EB37 7891 46A9 EAF9 93D0
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
