On 02/11/2007, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > Shawn Walker writes: > > My point was that there was never any indication of who the consensus > > was amongst. To say that there is consensus without indicating whom is > > bound to create frustration. > > Here's the original claim. > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-November/003018.html > > The right thing to do is roll back the content to the state it was in > for most of the past 2 years. I had hoped that reaching consensus > here about the underlying issue would make that clear, but for reasons > I don't completely understand that hasn't percolated through yet. > [...] > If you believe the OGB needs to include something to that effect in > our official position for you to be comfortable doing that, please let > us know. > > The meaning of "reached consensus here" ("on this mailing list; among > the OGB members") was patently obvious to me. Speaking of consensus > among the wider community would indeed be nonsense, but that wasn't at > all what was going on.
The problem is that the qualifying statement wasn't carried over to subsequent emails where the word consensus appeared alone. As you well know, trying to keep an earlier qualifying statement (which was not obvious to me) in mind among hundreds of emails is problematic at best. Can we just agree that clear communication is important and let this be known as a simple misunderstanding? Thanks. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall
