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