Niclas, The misspelling of your name is a persistent spelling correction that I sometimes catch and sometimes do not.
I apologize for the error. You are correct that I omitted the IF (and highlighted the fact that I did). The point remains that there are many interpretations to the original usage of EDI and it is unwarranted to draw much significance to the E. Matt's summary is the best. This group has done a survey and is working to analyze it to determine where there are anomalies and propose possible solutions. It is premature to say that the current situation must already be fully understood and that goals must already be clear. On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 10:41 PM Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: > Ted, (please stop referring to me as Nicolas) > the phrase you criticize was an answer to "maybe this belongs elsewhere", > not "a conditional that I take as a rhetorical device". > > I assure you that there is good intention from me here, BUT I would also > like to point out that you construct a strawman of what I said, which is a > typical "bad intention" move, and I could claim that you left out "IF..." > to make your point more strongly. > > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 2:04 PM Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Nicolas, > > > > It seems like your thread is thus: > > > > - somebody used the acronym EDI instead of D&I, possibly because this is > a > > common element of jargon > > - it turns out that E commonly stands for Equity > > - you asked about Equity in the context of Apache > > - you got a partial answer from someone who claimed not to be an expert > > - you conclude that "the desired outcome is not understood" (phrased as a > > conditional that I take as a rhetorical device) > > > > This seems to be a very strong conclusion to be drawn from such a very > thin > > broth of fact. > > > > To me, other conclusions that might be drawn: > > > > - the use of EDI was simply an echo of usage in other communities and has > > very little reference > > > > OR > > > > - the use of EDI was unintentional and, in fact, erroneous > > > > OR > > > > - the usage was intentional, but there is a well understood meaning in > this > > group (by people other then Ken and me) > > > > > > With so many possible interpretations, it seems premature to draw any > > conclusions about this, especially if we are guided by assuming good > > intentions as we should. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 9:31 PM Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:45 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I am far from expert in either the problems or solutions. I think > this > > > list > > > > is probably best for identifying problems and working towards > > solutions. > > > > > > > > > > If the desired outcome is not understood, how can problems be > identified > > > and solutions found? > > > > > >
