>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
Anthony> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:52:47AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: >> When I read a draft with a bunch of co-authors names on the >> authors list, I do tend to assume that the co-authors have signed on >> to the document. Anthony> *shrug* Your assumption was wrong: both in that people Anthony> hadn't signed on, and in that it was never meant to be taken Anthony> that way. Sorry , you have no idea what you are talking about. The first the document saw the light of day was on project; no one had signed on to it. Secondly, you seem bent on ignoring the effect of having influential people on your proposal; there is a definite impact on the reader; and in this case I think it was a misrepresntation. Anthony> For comparison, when someone proposes a general resolution, Anthony> it takes the form "The Debian Project resolves to...", even Anthony> before everyone in the project has had any chance to comment Anthony> at all, let alone agree. The group that's going to issue a Anthony> recommendation/whatever and the authors aren't necessarily Anthony> one and the same. To point out the glaring flaw in the above argument; the proposal is submitted to the membership at large; it is perfectly reasonable to have that preamble: we know we have not yet agreed to it. Had this draft been presented to the tech ctte first, it would not have been a misreprestnation: The ctte knows well it was not asked yet. Anthony> I'm not sure why you're making such a big deal over this; Anthony> it's not like it was posted to -announce, or claimed it was Anthony> in any way official, or, well, anything. It was a draft: Anthony> working out the appropriate group to issue it is up for Anthony> comment just as much as anything else in it. Becaue I feel calling it a joint representation by a bunch of people who were not even aware of the document is dishonest. Even if it was a draft document, presenting it to the world with the implied imprimatur of people who were not even aware of the existence of this document is wrong. Anthony> There're plenty of things that're worth getting hysterical Anthony> about (eg, that we have 20,000 open bugs), surely confusion Anthony> over the authorship of some draft guidelines isn't one of Anthony> them? Is the number of things one is permitted to be concerned about a 0 sum game now? I can no longer be concerned about something since I have used up my quota? I understand as RM you are trying to move the bugs into a closed stare, but this is the weirdest argument I have heard in a while. manoj -- user, n.: The word computer professionals use when they mean "idiot." Dave Barry, "Claw Your Way to the Top" [I always thought "computer professional" was the phrase hackers used when they meant "idiot." Ed.] Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C