Re: advice on appropriate responses to comments

On 04-10-13 17:28, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
> In my opinion, the next message in cases like these (and in fact in any
> case where a WG response has been rejected) should be discussed within
> the WG.  WG members should never respond individually in cases like
> these.   This has been policy (sometimes not well enforced) in WGs that
> I have participated in.
>
> On a broader scale, there are very good reasons for WG members not to
> debate in -comments lists, or even to send posts to these lists that
> have not been vetted by the WG, even if  WG members explicitly mark
> their postings as personal.

I agree with Peter here. Note also that the three options of Sandro do 
not include an "opinion" response. So, either you accept the comment and 
propose a change, or explain why you stand your ground (and thus 
politely but firmly stop discussing). If the comment is purely editorial 
it is fine for the editor to send a direct response. Technical comments 
typically require some prior WG feedback.

Guus


>
> peter
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us
> <mailto:phayes@ihmc.us>> wrote:
>
>     I need advice on WG protocol.
>
>     What should I do when (as with David Booth, recently), a response to
>     a LC comment is immediately rejected in a debating style? Should I
>     as a WG member refrain from taking part in the invited debate, or
>     should I respond to it point by point, or what? Should I distinguish
>     my personal responses from offiical WG responses?
>
>     Advice? Off-list if preferred.
>
>     Pat
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>     IHMC (850)434 8903 <tel:%28850%29434%208903> home
>     40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 <tel:%28850%29202%204416>   office
>     Pensacola (850)202 4440 <tel:%28850%29202%204440>   fax
>     FL 32502 (850)291 0667 <tel:%28850%29291%200667>   mobile (preferred)
>     phayes@ihmc.us <mailto:phayes@ihmc.us> http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Sunday, 6 October 2013 18:50:45 UTC