Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ian> As you can see, in this message I'm following your example more Ian> closely. All I need now is a productive person to flame, rather than Ian> an obstructive arsehole. Is this an advocated technique for conflict resolution that

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:54:54PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > That's the problem. You keep saying it's *you* working on it. If it's for > Debian at large, then we *all* should work on it. Stop being so ego centric. ``That's the problem. You keep saying *you're* working on the Bug Tracking Syste

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me"): > Well, I did respond to your original draft privately providing encouragement > about the creation of the document in general, and suggesting some changs. (Looking

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

Adam Heath writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me"): > That's the problem. You keep saying it's *you* working on it. If > it's for Debian at large, then we *all* should work on it. Stop > being so eg

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:18:58PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 06:37:29PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > People who take things personally are not going to behave in a rational > > manner, and some people just aren't rational; Debian has an ample supply > > of both. Peopl

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Ian Jackson wrote: > 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,

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me"): > Well, I did respond to your original draft privately providing encouragement > about the creation of the document in general, and suggesting some changs. I

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

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 t

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 06:37:29PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > People who take things personally are not going to behave in a rational > manner, and some people just aren't rational; Debian has an ample supply > of both. People who are acting rationally can sort things out on their > own, witho

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 12:01:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 11:38:39AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 02:03:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Maybe a GR really is the best way to go; we may find out that we can't > > > even muster q

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

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 11:38:39AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 02:03:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Maybe a GR really is the best way to go; we may find out that we can't > > even muster quorum on the issue, and that Ian, Manoj, and I have all > > inflated notio

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm going to digress here somewhat on the `lurkers support me in > email' question: > > As I said earlier the private mail I've received has convinced me that > I do have support for what I'm trying to do. I don't expect my > opponents (or indeed anyone el

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 02:03:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Maybe a GR really is the best way to go; we may find out that we can't > even muster quorum on the issue, and that Ian, Manoj, and I have all > inflated notions of the importance of this issue. Maybe most developers > are willing

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 03:00:18AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Is the number of things one is permitted to be concerned about > a 0 sum game now? *shrug* I just don't think this is worth getting all hyped up about. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes: Anthony> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:52:47AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns 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 >> t

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:52:47AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns 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. *shrug* Your assumption was wron

finding a consensus (was: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me)

i think in the present situation (both sides getting really worked up on the topic, it became a personal issue, the discussion starts being about beeing right and no longer about finding a solution) it would make sense to let someone else take over the draft and integrate suggestions. I propose b

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes: Anthony> On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:09:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Raul> Yes, of course you can. >> I think that would be wrong, to imply that a bunch of people >> had signed on to the draft document without asking them Anthony> I don't think Ian

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:43:28AM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > And, loud as you and Branden are, In what way have I been "loud"? You have complained several times about my messages but have not given me any prescriptive advice for how better to communicate with you, unless one counts the implicit

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 05:37:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > I think, however, that much of the disagreeing is a result of Branden's > politicing. In what way have I been politicking? I made a number of suggestions in response Ian's first proposed draft -- some of which he incoporated, some he

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: > Raul> Yes, of course you can. > I think that would be wrong, to imply that a bunch of people > had signed on to the draft document without asking them I don't think Ian implied that at all, for reference. If he did, I'm ce

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:30:49PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Bdale Garbee wrote: > > Did that message not reach you, or are you just annoyed that I haven't had > > anything particularly useful to inject into the conversation since then? > 'useful' in this case is not the common

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Bdale Garbee wrote: > Did that message not reach you, or are you just annoyed that I haven't had > anything particularly useful to inject into the conversation since then? 'useful' in this case is not the common definition, but Ian's own personal spin. Ie, useful in Ian's wor

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Raul> On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 01:27:23PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> Can I too start writing up documents and claim that they ar4e >> joint recommendations of the Technical committee? Since we are no >> longer restricted to technical is

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Jackson) writes: > Well, I was kind of hoping that the BTS admins and the project leader > would agree that something like this was a good idea, think that my > draft was useful, suggest changes, and eventually we'd get to > something that we could all agree on one. Well, I

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ian> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me"): Ian> ... >> I posit then that there is no indication that these are >&g

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ian> Eh ? I sent you all - all of the people I was proposing might like to Ian> put their name to it - a draft. Do you think I should have mailed you Ian> all privately but not posted it on -project ? Surely then Branden and Ian> Manoj wou

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes: Anthony> On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 01:37:19PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes: Anthony> Given no evidence to assume that it is, though, maybe we Anthony> shouldn't leap to it as a conclusion just yet? >> For the record

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Ian Jackson wrote: > Adam Heath writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document > draft with me"): > > So, Ian tried to rubber stamp something from groups before he ever even sent > > out feelers to those groups.

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Ian Jackson wrote: > So, in the absence of anything convincing me otherwise, after I think > everyone's had a say here, I'll go back to the tech ctte very shortly > and propose it as a resolution there - and obviously it'll have the > names of the DPL and BTS admins taken off i

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

Adam Heath writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me"): > So, Ian tried to rubber stamp something from groups before he ever even sent > out feelers to those groups. Again, this is a 'do as I say not as I do' &g

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me"): ... > I posit then that there is no indication that these are > anywhere close to the views of the techmnical committee, since there > has been absolu

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

Branden Robinson writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me"): > [Since Ian has said he won't listen to me, I'm making these remarks for > the benefit of the rest of the Project.] ... > What's informal about

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 01:27:23PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Can I too start writing up documents and claim that they ar4e > joint recommendations of the Technical committee? Since we are no > longer restricted to technical issues, I have a few choice things to > say about the dcma,

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Matt" == Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Matt> On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 06:06:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > >> -A *DRAFT* joint recommendation of the the Technical Committee, the > >> -Project Leader and the Bug Tracking System

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 01:37:19PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes: > Anthony> Given no evidence to assume that it is, though, maybe we > Anthony> shouldn't leap to it as a conclusion just yet? > For the record, I am afraid of disagreeing publicly with

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 01:27:23PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Ian> I'm going to digress here somewhat on the `lurkers support me in > Ian> email' question: > > I a going to outright reject that these hypothetical lurkers > have any bearing on a public social document that is suppose

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

>>"Matt" == Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Matt> On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 06:06:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: >> -A *DRAFT* joint recommendation of the the Technical Committee, the >> -Project Leader and the Bug Tracking System Administrators. >> +A *DRAFT* joint recommendation

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes: Anthony> Given no evidence to assume that it is, though, maybe we Anthony> shouldn't leap to it as a conclusion just yet? For the record, I am afraid of disagreeing publicly with aj. manoj -- Be self-reliant and your success is assured. M

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> b) I objected to document being written apparently with the >> ratification of the *technical* committee, despite this not >> being a technical issue; and that too was dismissed with ``it is >> important to do so''; despite no other member

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 06:06:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > -A *DRAFT* joint recommendation of the the Technical Committee, the > -Project Leader and the Bug Tracking System Administrators. > +A *DRAFT* joint recommendation of the the Technical Committee, and the > +Project Leader. Well,

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 06:06:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > -A *DRAFT* joint recommendation of the the Technical Committee, the > -Project Leader and the Bug Tracking System Administrators. > +A *DRAFT* joint recommendation of the the Technical Committee, and the > +Project Leader. As lo

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:34:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > If there are people out there apart from Branden and Manoj who > > disagree with me about anything to do with this document (or indeed > > about anything at all in Debian!), I'd like to encourage them to mail > > me about it. I

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Since Ian has said he won't listen to me, I'm making these remarks for the benefit of the rest of the Project.] On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 05:19:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > 5. Offer advice. > > The Technical Committee may make formal announcements about its > views on any matter. ((I

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me"): > Incidentally, my concerns have not been addressed, as > dismissed, in typical high handed fashion: for example: > a) I objected to the supercil

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

Hi, If this is true, then the dispute resolution seems to have failed. In general, people writing a HOWTO have demonstrable expertise in the area of the howto, or they listen to and gather nuggets of wisdom from those who are competent. If the authors of the conflict resaolutio

why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

Hi folks, Just a brief note to those of you who have been following the "disputes resolution" document threads. Ian Jackson sent me an unsolicited private mail a few days ago complaining that he was perceiving an abrasive tone in my messages regarded his draft. After a few private exchanges, he