On Feb 1, 2009, at 7:41 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Sam Ruby 2009-02-02 02.20:
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Lachlan Hunt 2009-02-01 03.30:
-public-html
+www-archive
I see a "strawman".
Sorry, that's not a strawman either. Maciej was just pointing
that the he largely agreed with what Sam wrote, except for one
small part.
You (and Majiej) make it sound as if there is any difference
between saying
"I disagree in point x."
and
"I agree, except in point x."
My guidance was inconsistent. "give each other the benefit of the
doubt" vs. "call them out when you see them". I'd suggest we would
all benefit from giving the former a bit more weight than the latter.
I subscribe to this.
One thing that may also not be clear here: "I think it is helpful
to the group to see people coming to agreement" is a making a
subtle point that Maciej sees "coming to an agreement" a subclass
worth distinguishing from "if you agree".
And, you know what? I tend to agree.
It might be that I not fully have grasped the fullness of things you
two have disagreed about, and so I was not able to appreciate enough
that you two come together on all other points. I of course
appreciate that you are coming together.
However, I have not, unlike Maciej, expressed disagreement in the
particular point that he did express it on. And unlike Lachlan I do
not consider this point a minor one either. On the contrary, if
there is one thing I think particular important, then it is that
there are quite fixed and orderly rules for how to raise issues. And
I therefore was very happy to see you suggest such formalias. I
would consider the vagueness that Maciej suggested instead as only
more of the same situation as we have today. (Besides, if I
remember, you allowed for some judgement even in your rule - it was
not just "count 3 person and go".)
This has been a problem in the past. There were many issues that
were raised, but thenafter closed. The main problem in this was not
the fact that they were closed (which were discouraging enough
though) but the fact that there were no fixed rules for how to go
forward with what what cared for. It is much more easy to accept
that one looses an issue if one know the rules, and can say that one
tried to follow them and yet still lost.
Many things have been tried: the Wiki, the issue tracker - and other
things. I am not the one that have tried the hardest, I do not fully
grasp all the rules and "institutions" for our group - so I am not
the one to explain it best. But I have been with others who tried to
raise issues, and have seen their wikipages been deleted, their
issues in the tracker not being accepted and so on. Hence rules to
calculate with is needed. (I only speak for myself, however, I do
not guarantee if others think the rules you proposed are good enough.)
Hence I felt it important to say that Maciej was stating
disagreement. He only gave the reason "much work" for not having
that rule, so his opposition might not be too strong. Here is hoping
that it is so.
Your letter was a much appreciated step in the right direction. I am
glad to agree with Maciej in that.
Hi Leif,
If you think that Sam's proposal to record all open issues in the spec
itself is a good one, then in my opinion you should argue in its
favor, and do that on public-html. But (incorrectly) accusing people
of making strawman arguments doesn't do anything to promote your case.
What you wrote above would have been a much better reply to my
original email than what I said.
Regards,
Maciej
