Re: Decision Policy [was: Intended Audience]

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.


Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 04:09:17 UTC