If you can find all the same detailed explanations that Shane has provided in your paragraph simply saying "because I believe we still archive the president@ alias" I'll buy you a beer.
Also, Joe, I'm sorry to say that -- but I do find your writing style *very* difficult to follow when it comes to details. Thanks, Roman. On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Here was your reply to me when I first pointed out the deficiencies with > president@. So much for the difficult to understand flowery prose, you keep > changing your stripes with each passing hour: > > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Joseph Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> > wrote: >> >> Having a foundation wide CoC is great, but as to whether president@ is >> effective I have >> never seen the board report which indicates that it is actually being used >> and things are >> happening with those reports (if any). >> >> Rather than a generic officer address I suggest a dedicated alias with >> named people in >> the CoC responsible for follow up. Expectations of confidentiality need to >> be communicated >> because I believe we still archive the president@ alias. > > Joe, thank you for this suggestion. This is precisely the kind of > actionable AND non-trivial > suggestions that so far have been lacking on this thread. > > Shall we fork it into a separate thread to get a closure? > Show original message > On Friday, May 27, 2016 10:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> > wrote: >> Here's what I wrote to you on members@ Roman: >> >> """ >> You're overlooking the archiving problem with president@ Roman. >> That we tell people in the CoC that a report to that channel is available >> to roughly 600 people unknown to them is needed if we are going to >> not paper over the fact that it's really not what a normal person would >> consider "confidential" despite the language in the CoC. Much less the >> additional hundred or so unknown people on a pmc list who would have >> access to the report if it were made to private@pmc. >> """ >> >> Hard to have an intelligent conversation with you Roman when only one of >> us >> is paying attention to what the other has said. > > It would be much easier to have an intelligent conversation with me, > Joe, if your > english prose was structured along the lines of what Shane wrote to me. > > I understand your desire for emphatic, floury language, but what you > don't realize > is that you make it very difficult to distill data points from your > paragraph by employing > that kind of language. > > > Thanks, > Roman. > >
