On 30/11/2004 14:55, Michael Everson wrote:
At 14:05 +0000 2004-11-30, Peter Kirk wrote:
...
There are a number of people, yourself included, who are actively, either maliciously or from ignorance, misrepresenting the relationship between the UTC and WG2, and of the standardization process, under the guise of "innocent" discussion. ...
I have merely been asking searching questions, partly from ignorance I agree. If you or anyone else considers that I have been misrepresenting the relationship, you are free to correct me.
... It is my personal opinion that none of that discussion should be taken at face value, for it seems clear that its hidden agenda is to discredit the expertise of the UTC and WG2 in order to shed bad light on the work we do, whether in general or with regard to particular items in the standardization process.
The not so hidden agenda is that I wish to clarify what happens now that certain parts of the WG2 amendment have been rejected with comments by influential ISO members. I wish to ensure that these comments will be taken seriously in WG2 discussions. I do wish to shed bad light on your decision on one particular item, because I consider that item to be technically incorrect. But please don't take technical disagreement as an ad hominem matter. I have nothing against you personally, I just disagree with you on some technical matters.
My comment was, it should be said, intended for Doug Ewell alone, and it was an error on my part to have sent it to the list. My comment was intended to encourage him not to waste his energy on fruitless discussion.
I accept your apology.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
