Re: Decision Policy [was: Intended Audience]

Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Lachlan Hunt 2009-02-01 03.30:
>> -public-html
>> +www-archive
>> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> The third word is "strawman".  It involves raising and addressing an 
>>> issue that bears only a superficial resemblance to the topic being 
>>> discussed.
>> That is not the definition of a strawman.  A strawman is an argument 
>> where one person misrepresents another's position so as to be easily 
>> refuted.
> Avoiding the point(s), for the benefit of one's own point(s), but still 
> making it seem as if one were on topic. That is a straw man.
>> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>> Maciej Stachowiak 2009-01-31 22.55:
>>>> I don't think your description is in conflict with what I stated. 
>>>> The one part I disagree with is that any raised issue that at least 
>>>> three people agree is an issue must be flagged in Working Drafts. I 
>>>> do think it is often a good idea to mark especially controversial 
>>>> issues, or especially pervasive and clearly unresolved issues, but I 
>>>> think doing this as a matter of course may create a lot of work. I 
>>>> would say instead that we should exercise reasonable judgment about 
>>>> when a flag in the draft is warranted.
>>> Stating his disagreement. (Conditionally permitted by Sam.)
>>>> P.S. I know you asked people not to state their agreement on the 
>>>> list. But since your email was a reply to me, but since your email 
>>>> was a reply to me and since I think it is helpful to the group to 
>>>> see people coming to agreement, I chose to make an exception.
>>> Claiming to have stated his agreement.
>>> Sam:
>>>> Keep a watch out for these three, and call them out when you see them.
>>> 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.

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.


- Sam Ruby

Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 01:20:43 UTC