Re: DTSTART for recurrence instances

> Could you add a rule something like:
>
>   Please read the drafts before posting and make sure that what you
>   are about to say is true before posting. Some people make what
>   seems to many to be an authoritative statement and after reading
>   the RFC's or submitted drafts, they seem to have ignored specific
>   parts of the text or declare it as (not valid). So such topics
>   need to be tagged as 'iCal-next', 'itip-next' or whatever so they
>   do not get confused with a discussion about what has actually been
>   submitted.

While I agree that we should all read the drafts before posting, the
drafts are HUGE and remember every detail all the time is not something
I consider reasonable.  Further, it takes a while for most of us to
understand what the drafts are really trying to say.  I believe that
many people are fully capable of being involved and being constructive
without having read every word of the drafts.

The main problem I have with this is that many of us have the ability
to read the exact same things and understand them completely differently,
it shuts down the engagement of debate that leads to understanding
and compromise through the threat of upsetting the incumbents, and
most oftentimes one doesn't know they are talking about iCal next
or untruths until after they have been told _and_ shown such (they
are trying to understand and make sense of what they've already read
and just saying they have it wrong isn't always enough).

Further, there is also the topic of hotly debated issues, like the ones
surrounding RECURRENCE-IDs and whether or not each instance tracks its
own SEQUENCE.  We still, as far as I can see, don't have complete agreement
on those issues, and we each have read the drafts and interpretted
them differently.  Further, from what I gather, the most consensus is
actually towards an interpretation that must call a particular section
of iTIP invalid.  This wasn't arrived at lightly.  But the ability to
invalidate a section of an RFC is a right we must reserve and use when
necessary.  I'm not saying that we should just invalidate a section
whenever it helps our argument.  I am saying that discussing and then
upon serious reflections choosing to invalidate a section of the RFC
must be protected on this WG list.

Also, if someone posts information that you believe to be false then you
have
an obligation to correct them above and beyond just saying they are wrong.
If you are not able to correct them, but know they are wrong, then you are
obligated to say as much in the interest of moving the conversation forward.


Those of us who engage in that practice more often than not are able
to clean up misunderstanding in a message or two.  Unless there is a
clear point of confusion or disagreement, and then it becomes important
to identify it and come to consensus.

How are we going to know what goes into iCal-next if we don't pursue the
conversations that will make it better?  Besides who would decide what is
false information or when someone has posted enough of it to be kicked out?
On most occasions, information that you have called false I have determined
to be true...  I believe that each of our opinions carries equal weight and
therefore we are at a stalemate...  In addition, throwing people out just
seems wrought with political woe as people take sides on whether or not it
should have been done.

The WG process depends upon the participants being reasonable and pursuing
conversations that lead to forward progress.  It depends on the pursuit
of training people to be to be stewards for progress and to send each
email with the idea of forwarding a conversation not stonewalling it or
taking personal joy in trying to stick it to the other party.

It requires respect that others may understand things differently than
ourselves, and any one of us may have the more workable ideas.  Therefore,
it becomes paramount to understand each other, and clearly state when
there seems to be a misunderstanding.

As much as possible we must all consider ourselves on the same team,
working toward the same goal.  If someone truly is just here to be a
troll, then most of us will just ignore that person.  If people are in
agreement with that person, then perhaps they have something worth saying
or are touting a common misunderstanding (which will forever need to be
corrected on the list).  If that person truly is touting false information
and people are buying it, then creating consensus _is_ the most important
thing.  Sending well constructed emails built on the foundations of the
RFCs and demonstrations (non-)workability (if needed) must ensue.

-- Michael --