Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION (continued): PNG Registration Process 20170125

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Cosmin Truta <[email protected]> wrote:
> My understanding is that you (John) want to vote on the original
> proposal (2017-0115) and foreclose on the technical changes between
> that version and the current (2017-0119) proposal.

No: I'm saying that the process of discussion of my proposal has
totally obfuscated the proposal, therefore we need to actually have a
discussion process that discusses the *proposal* rather than drifting
off into either new proposals or discussion about discussion.

> As a matter of fact, it's not the wrong thread at all. (And I replied
> directly to your direct statement, haven't I?) Under the assumption of
> my understanding stated above, I said I disagree with the principle of
> disregarding the progress made in technical negotiations. We should
> not allow that in any of our formal processes. Now, if my
> understanding was incorrect, then, never mind...

Indeed.

> With all due respect, Sir, you don't *have* to think that I am
> "grandstanding".

Ok, you were grandstanding.  Criticism accepted.

>And for the future, I would really appreciate if you
> could please stick to technicalities, process, code, whatever, and not
> make assumptions about what I am or what I do.

We are discussing process and I think grandstanding is not productive,
though I cannot deny it is part of the process.  I am attempting to
outline a procedure which, while it can never *prevent* grandstanding,
or hijacking, or simple off topic discussion, is somewhat immune to it
because the proposer remains in control.

>You may ask (if it's
> important for you to know), but please do not throw assumptions into
> my face. Not acceptable.

Calling out a debater for their manner of debate is part of debate.  I
agree it is not productive in a technical discussion, which is why I
am confining it to this thread, which is about the process not
anything technical.  It is also why I am trying to outline a process
for a technical discussion which is "somewhat" immune to it.

-- 
John Bowler <[email protected]>
+1 (541) 450-9885
PO BOX 3151
KERBY OR 97531-3151
USA

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot