On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 21:54, Tansley, Robert wrote:
> > In any case, much of this comes down to a difference of opinions - my
> > experiences are obviously telling me different things than yours are
> > telling you. Given that my contributions are evidently assumed to be
> > "simply knee jerk reactions" I don't think that there's any profit for
> > anyone in my continuing the discussion much further.
> Apologies if this is the impression you got; that certainly wasn't the
> intention. My intention was to promote discussion, not stop it. The
> 'knee jerk' comment (prompted because in the past people have often
> said 'oh, I don't think that's enough' on the spot when I've mentioned
> a polling methodology) was not aimed at any individual or individual's
> comments. E-mail's a tricky, unnatural medium -- without the
> estimated 80% of communication that is non-verbal, offence is all too
> easily taken where none is meant. If people withdraw from the
> discussion every time this happens I don't think we'll get far as an
> open source project. There will always be disagreements about how to
> approach various problems and issues, and we need to discuss and work
> through them objectively as a group.
> > Instead,
> > I'm going
> > to work up a proof-of-concept of some of the ideas I've been
> > proposing.
> > Hopefully a concrete implementation will be more persuasive.
> > Either way
> > at least we'll be able to objectively compare the methods to
> > aspects of the design.
> This sounds like a useful approach. I hope it can be undertaken as an
> aid to rather than a replacement for dialogue.
Apology accepted, and I apologise in return for misunderstanding. My
intention to withdraw from that discussion wasn't based on any offence
taken, but rather on an awareness of how destructive it can be when the
only discussion on an issue is an irresolvable difference of opinion.
I'm very happy to be part of a wider group discussion.