From: Henry Spencer (henry@spsystems.net)
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 12:04:37 CDT
On Sat, 1 May 2004, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> ...At least John, I, and Eivind have gone on record that Charles'
> text has no place in document #1 (USEFOR) but that its subject matter might
> be appropriate for document #3. Yet Charles has steadfastly refused to
> give *any* consideration to that...
Instead, he's been trying to get you to accept a compromise, because
various other people (e.g., me) think some discussion of the matter *does*
belong in document #1 -- i.e., there seems no possibility of achieving
consensus using your approach, and Charles realizes that and has been
acting accordingly. The pro-inclusion people have generally been willing
to accept compromises on wording, but you appear unwilling to accept
compromise of any kind.
> Happiness is irrelevant -- the document content has been clearly defined
> by the WG Chairs, and particular text is either consistent with such
> content or not. That is an objective fact unrelated to "happiness".
Unfortunately, your assessment of this "objective fact" differs from that
of a number of other participants, so it seems it's not quite so objective
after all.
Henry Spencer
henry@spsystems.net