A note on process
Michael Sperber
(06 Jan 2004 10:56 UTC)
|
Re: A note on process
Felix Winkelmann
(06 Jan 2004 11:25 UTC)
|
Re: A note on process Michael Sperber (06 Jan 2004 11:41 UTC)
|
Re: A note on process
Felix Winkelmann
(06 Jan 2004 12:39 UTC)
|
Re: A note on process
Michael Sperber
(06 Jan 2004 13:10 UTC)
|
Re: A note on process
Felix Winkelmann
(06 Jan 2004 13:19 UTC)
|
Re: A note on process
Tom Lord
(06 Jan 2004 21:32 UTC)
|
Re: A note on process Michael Sperber 06 Jan 2004 11:41 UTC
>>>>> "Felix" == Felix Winkelmann <xxxxxx@proxima-mt.de> writes: Felix> So why have a public discussion and a draft period? Discussions can Felix> get heated, that's nothing one should be afraid of. It just shows Felix> that everybody takes the issues seriously. I'm alerting you to the fact that authors are less likely to act on suggestions when they're annoyed. I'm not complaining about the fact there's a discussion, I'm complaining about the way the discussion is going. Felix> So why don't put some hard work into getting it right from the Felix> start? In fact, I'm getting *really* annoyed now. *As you know* (having had advance look at this SRFI months ago), we put some *very* hard work even in the current draft. Felix> On the other hand, the authors haven't shown much effort to Felix> address many of the issues others have pointed out, Hey, Felix---the thing's been in draft for 2 weeks. Sorry we haven't addressed "many of the issues" yet. They're complicated, and they're not nearly as simple as you make them out to be. Most of us have day jobs. Felix> Right. But opinions is what a discussion is about, mostly, no? At its most helpful, it's about *issues*. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla