Raul Miller writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me"): > On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:09:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > I think that would be wrong, to imply that a bunch of people > > had signed on to the draft document without asking them > > I think a lot of the heatedness in this discussion is a reaction to > implications rather than a reaction to concretely expressed ideas.
Perhaps I can help. It seems that, despite marking my document DRAFT etc., I've offended some people by in their view giving the impression that the document is currently anything more than something I'm working on - with people's help, of course, but not necessarily their approval. So, I apologise for giving that mistaken impression. I'd appreciate it if that apology could be accepted so that we can get on with talking about what's really important - the substantive content. Would it help if I put `DRAFT PROPOSED' at the top of my next draft instead of just `DRAFT' ? Would that make it clear that there is not (yet, anyway) any formal approval from anyone but me ? Ian.