Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 5 Mar 2013 11:23:05 +0800 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Yes, I agree with Ron on this point.
I absolutely am pleased that there is an NCSG statement putting this position - it is great to see that we can deal with internal disagreements.
The language used, however, doesn't read like a statement of a minority position - it feels like a cranky continuation of internal argument by different means. Misrepresentation of opposing positions, so that you can then argue against the caricatured version, accusations of opponents being 'hysterical'. Frankly I expect better of most of the signers.
Cheers
David
On 05/03/2013, at 10:36 AM, Ron Wickersham <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> i especially find that the wording borders
> on "bullying" when you state that "we find these claims to be hysterical..."
> i don't recall hysterical language being used by dissenting views posted
> on the mailing list. i find the use of emotional language unpersuasive
> and unfitting in a position document.
>
> would it be impolite to ask that the title be changed and the content
> modified to limit the scope of general support/consensus implied on the full membership of the NCSG?
>
> -ron wickersham
|
|
|