Re: [Fwd: CAP-12 - interm version 'A']

> > > > If you honestly believe there were "thousands" of typos
> > > > and grammar changes then I have some land to sell you...
> > >
> > > Yet another dishonest (sorry Pat, it is a lie. Enthusiasm is for
> > > children)
> > > statement from Bruce. Doug said "thousands WG and private emails" not
> > > thousands of typos. Now who is the one trying to mislead this list?
> > 
> > If you believe that Doug has actually received thousands of
> > emails about this between Cap-10 and now then I have some
> > land to sell you...
> 
> I just checked the list, there were  1580 emails on the list
> from the announcement of -10 (end of Feb) until now.
> 
> He said he went back a month before editing -11, and  feb
> had 280 (est), total 1860.
> 
> If he went back to Jan that is about 150 (est) more.
> Bringing the total to 2010.
>
> Now assuming he got any private emails, 2,000 is 'thousands'.
> Minus some number between -11 (or -12) and now.

Oh come on, how many of those actaully had 
proposed changes in them or did the threads even warrant
reading for proposed changes?

On Feb. 28th Doug announced the availability
of -10.  Since then I can only find 1095 emails to 
the list.  Of which 376 (roughly 25%) have been 
directly related to the July 28th RECURRENCE-ID 
discussion where the disagreements over 
RECURRENCE-ID really starting flying and none of 
that discussion has had one sugestion in about 
CAP yet.

On June 30th, Doug announced what was going 
in the -11 rev changes, so we expected those, but he 
flat out refused to tell us what went into -12 and 
its successor -12-a or -12-b.  

On August 18th, he mentioned 75 typos, grammar fixes,
and requests for clarification.  No one commented on 
his proposals for the security changes from the same 
day so I wouldn't expect those to be in there.  He did 
say thanks to some people for submitting typos and 
grammatical errors on -12, -12-a, and -12-b.  

How those became 700+ changes and his sudden flip in 
behavior towards not giving out information that he'd 
previously been forthcoming with is definitely cause 
for investigation.  Investigation is not in itself an
accusation, it's being responsible on our part.  Doug
as our trusted editor suddenly being defiant about our
questioning of a certainly out of the ordinary changeset
didn't help matters any.


However in the interst of moving forward I'll
take this one back.  Doug, even though you won't read
this because have decided to ignore me, I apologize 
for asserting that you hadn't actually had changes 
from over 2000 emails.  I had made the inappropriate 
but I think reasonable assumption that the "this" 
we were talking about were actual textual change 
recommendations after a bunch of people said "I agree" 
or simple typo and ommission/duplicate fixes and not 
"total number of emails sent to the list and Doug personally."



-- Michael --