Branden Robinson writes ("Re: Disputes between developers - draft guidelines"):
...
> 4) "Slanging match" may be a little too colloquial for a formal
> document with an international audience.How about `shouting match' ? > 5) I appreciate your willingness to delete the sentence about "go away > and grow up", but more important to me is the issue of whether you think > it's sound policy for the Technical Committee to refuse to "grant > certiorari", if you will, to a developer who is willing to > constructively discuss a dispute when the person he or she is in > conflict with isn't. In direct answer: no, I think it would be an unsound policy. The Technical Committee would probably be annoyed at the uncooperative developer, but it should take the `case'. > 6) The main point behind my edit to the first paragraph of section 4 is > the notion that there are certain issues that the Technical Committee > regards as non-justiciable; since the Committee has declined to rule on > a dispute on that basis at least once in the past, I presume the > Committee still feels that way. Please correct me if I am mistaken. > The thrust of section 4 appears to be advice to developers for resolving > disputes when the TC cannot be involved. If so, I think that should be > made explicit. You're right. But, I don't think that needs to be made explicit. If someone involves the TC and it's clearly a process problem (or just a tirade of insults) then we can help them through that without having to formally decide. If a formal decision has to be made, then the TC can't decide it - we don't have the power to (although if we are clear on something, we can make a recommendation). > 7) I could not locate the language "consider writing it" in the draft > you sent to debian-project. I haven't sent out my latest draft yet, it'll be out shortly. > 0) In a document that is supposed to speak for a large collective, I > think it is important to minimize the number of personal idiosyncrasies > in spelling, grammar, punctuation, and usage of idioms and > colloquialisms. I don't think any of the issues you've raised that I've not addressed separately make any significant difference to comprehensibility. Please let me know if you disagree. > Despite these minor points, I continue to feel that the general tenor of > your proposed draft is sound, and needed. Thanks. Ian.
