[squeak-dev] Resolution of Contentious Issues

Casey Ransberger casey.obrien.r at gmail.com
Mon May 9 12:57:05 UTC 2011


Sorry, I must have miscommunicated. This was not meant to imply that you
were suggesting a "private final conversation." I was actually attempting to
reference the "working group" idea, and I don't think I communicated that
effectively; mea culpa.

The point I keep trying to get across is that I'm asking to use the voting
system to *poll* people, for strictly informational purposes, not hold a
vote.

2011/5/9 Stéphane Rollandin <lecteur at zogotounga.net>

> If the better idea is siloing decisions in small rooms and keeping the
>> broader community out of the final conversation whenever a topic is
>> contentious, that sounds like a problem to me...
>>
>
> Certainly not what I suggest.
>
> You talked about long recurring threads leading to nowhere: this happens
> publicly, doesn't it ? I'm only saying that if there is longlasting
> disagreement about an issue, that issue needs to discussed again, not solved
> via a vote.
>
> I don't know what made you think I have been asking for a "private final
> conversation". I can only remark that you are not pleased by my honest
> answer to your question. Well, if you do not want answers, don't ask
> questions. Or, if you want controlled answers, just set up a vote: voting is
> a good way to pretend being open while presenting only the options you are
> interested in.
>
>
> Stef
>
>


-- 
Casey Ransberger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20110509/8674fe1c/attachment.htm


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list