From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Wed Jun 12 2002 - 13:35:42 CDT
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> Nope. Sorry, but in English that's not the case. Otherwise known as the
> fallacy of the Excluded Middle.
I am saddened by your unacceptable understanding of the english language.
There is no "excluded middle" in this case. "Unacceptable" means "not
acceptable". As loathe as I am to post dictionary references, it is clear
that you didn't bother to look it up before you spoke, so I'll make it
easy for you.
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=unacceptable&db=*
> For the record, I believe that Charles's analysis of the situation matches
> my understanding of what the Rough Consensus of this group was.
It does not match mine, nor does it match the expressed consensus as used
in argument against my suggested change. My argument was moot because
"other places" (8.2.2) forbid the kind of mistake I was arguing against
the injector being allowed to make, I was told. Now you say that the
consensus is to allow this. I'm sorry, you cannot have it both ways.
An article that violates site policy is unacceptable - by definition.
Whether it can be "fixed" is a separate issue, one that used to be covered
by a MUST NOT in this standard, which was, judging by lack of comment, and
by claim of the editor, the group consensus. Now "fixing" an unacceptable
article is allowable, which you claim really was the consensus all along.
Your lack of objection disproves your statement.
> To that
> end, his rewording brings the text closer to that Rough Consensus, and I
> support it.
If you objected to the wording of 8.2.2 step 5 you had ample chance to
bring it up before now. Did you? No. Nobody did. It was changed without
discussion.
This change is not the simple "rewording" Charles claims it is. It changes
the authority of the injector not to simply stop processing (i.e. reject)
articles that are not acceptable, but it may withhold that decision to
reject and then do whatever it wants to try to "fix" it, under the
pretense of "site policy". Yes, that includes replacing the From header
if it wants. And no, this is NOT with the permission of the poster, it can
take place without any notice to the poster at all.
This change is a clear violation of the process. A section of the draft
that was claimed to be the product of consensus has been changed
significantly without a single word of discussion, without a single word
of objection to the current wording, and after the last-call for
objections. To claim that it now reflects Rough Consensus is ludicrous. If
it did not you should have spoken up long ago, as I did about 5.2.