From: Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)
Date: Wed May 08 2002 - 21:48:26 CDT
Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
> My inclination is to leave most of these unchanged unless I hear support
> from the List. So please let me hear your comments, even if it is only a
> me2 to someopne else's opinion.
I do appreciate your due diligence in following up to all these
complaints, Charles, but I also don't want you to feel like with more
careful attention you're going to be able to resolve the fundamental
complaints. In other words, this feels a bit like pushing around deck
chairs on the Titanic.
Andrew and I both came up with lists in response to requests for examples
of why we have problems. Making all those problems go away would be a
substantial change that would change opinions, but just revisting
discussion on two or three really isn't going to change anything
fundamentally and may actually be a waste of your time. I really don't
want to make you do futile work; that's not my purpose at all in raising
objections. My purpose is to raise a fundamental objection to the
underlying philosophy behind what we have right now, and given examples to
support that objection.
I'm guessing that at this point you feel like you have a duty in your role
as editor to put forward the document fundamentally as it stands. I
understand and respect that stance as a decision within your role as
editor. I think the underlying objection that we're discussing here is a
question that goes pretty far beyond the scope of what an editor can
resolve.
-- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>