Subject:
|
Re: Time for BFC overhaul?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Apr 2000 21:39:38 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
(rui.martins@link.)Spamcake(pt)
|
Viewed:
|
1917 times
|
| |
|
|
> Previously, Steve wrote:
> [SNIP]
> > There we go again !
> > I saw this coming !
>
> I'm glad I didn't let you down. ;)
>
> > Why the hack do you assume things are stable as long as you agree with
> > the supposed current status of them ?
>
> Because it's easier than rereading the entire thread of 83 messages
> where we went through all this before. Seriously. But I will attempt
> to go through that thread, recap the issues raised, and outline their
> outcome. But that will be in a separate message from this one.
Didn't answer the question, but moving on.
> [SNIP]
> I don't ignore anything. I may read it, read differing statements, and
> go with what I feel is the best choice. I do try to *not* cross the
> opinion of the majority, regardless of my personal opinion.
That's good to know.
> > By this I mean:
> > Sometime ago, last year, you also made an afirmation similar to the one
> > in this mail, and I replyed to you and the group, with a mail saying
> > some of the issues that were NOT closed or agreed by all.
>
> Notice that this issue is still open. I try to be *very* careful, in my
> messages and e-mail and actions, to not inadvertently imply that the
> proposed BFC standard is anything more than a proposal.
Yes, but the proposed standard doesn't list the several options for
a specific issue thta asn't been agreed iet.
List the options, that's my point, because if you don't, than you are
taking a side. right ?
> [SNIP]
> It is easier to see what works and what fails when there is an actual
> example to test.
Sometimes, because sometimes it just leads you to erroneous choices.
> > You have done a similar thing with the actual spec you wrote.
>
> I do consider my opinion as one 'vote' among equals. So if I see a
> message from Mr. Y saying A, and another from Mr. X saying B, and I
> think A is more valid B, I will go with A. Now, when Mr. Z steps up,
> and agrees with B, we're in trouble.
Well I think that's the only problem of democracy, the ties (spelling ?).
> > This is NOT saying that someone shouldn't write a spec, I mean that you
> > shouldn't force the ideias that where not agreed in the spec.
>
> Very true.
Great !
> > I know that any one can say they don't agree with it, but once it's
> > written it is a lot more dificult to change.
>
> But if it's not written, it's much harder to keep focus and know where
> we stand.
Just point out all the solutions, not just the ones you think are
correct!
> > You accept ideias from others as long as they don't clash with yours !
>
> That's not true. I'm just thick-skulled. Sometimes things have to be
> explained to me with very small words. With some repetition.
Well, if I can help drill it when needed, just say so 8)
Thanks for this reply. I think we are improving things.
See ya
Rui Martins
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Time for BFC overhaul?
|
| (...) In lugnet.cad.dev, Rui Martins wrote: (...) I'm glad I didn't let you down. ;) (...) Because it's easier than rereading the entire thread of 83 messages where we went through all this before. Seriously. But I will attempt to go through that (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
