> > > I don't want to upset anybody for any reason. I regret that my > > > words > > > have upset you, but I think that they were misinterpreted in a > > > way > > > that I couldn't possibly have predicted. The particular aspect of > > > > I strongly object to that. It's pretty obvious to me that > > addressing > > people in third person is very offending. > > So, you object to him referring to you in the third person in an > email, > and you object to him saying it was "misinterpreted". Are you going > to > object to my email too?
No, of course not. And sorry for not being precise enough, I only objected to the prediction part, but I agree, I take the objection back. I guess it's as difficult for Peter to understand why this is offensive as it is for me to not see it as such. > I think it might have been in the third person because at that point, > Peter didn't expect a reply from you, and put you on the "TO" line > merely as a courtesy. He could have put out an email about reverting > the patch without you on the email header at all, I guess --- then he > could have referred to you without offending you. Right, that was my only problem originally. It seemed difficult to bring that point over. > Let me be practical here --- the more someone has to be chased for a > reply, the less confidence they have in that person. If the RMT > contacts you about something, and obviously they have had to take > usual > efforts to contact you, the more it is on you to give a full report > and > a timeline of when you will address the issue. If they had to chase > you > around, and you gave them a short answer, the less confidence they > have > in this getting resolved in a timely manner. Again agreed, please keep in mind, though, that I didn't notice I was being chased until Peter's first email. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org