OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [office] Status of list discussions/Suggestion how to proceed


Hi Florian,

Florian Reuter wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
> 
> in our internal communication we tried to work out whether there will be a consensus or not. I explicitly pointed you to
> the fact that there is a difference between the consensus proposal and the "original" proposal.

No, you didn't explicitly pointed out such a difference.
For me, your consensus proposal is an enhanced version of your original 
one containing some considerations of my comments to your original one 
and your consensus suggestion.

> We then tried to figure out whether we can find a consensus. It turned out that we couldn't find one. It failed, cause
> of the style<=>counter relationship I demanded in order to fullfill my reqs F1 and F2.
> 

I didn't see, that you explicitly demand a style<=>counter relationship 
in your proposals, neither in the original one nor in the consensus one.
What I said was, that I don't think, that you will find a consensus, if 
you demand a style<=>counter relationship.

> You then posted the evaluation of the reqs wrt. to the consensus altough you internally communicated to me that you
> don't see a consensus based on the consensus proposal.

I didn't reject your consensus proposal, but I've got some concerns 
about it.
In my opinion its normal, that someone expresses some negative feedback 
on a proposal. That doesn't mean in general, that the proposal can't be 
a basis for a future consensus.

> 
> So basically you took the consensus proposal of the table yourself.
> 

That's a wrong interpretation from your sight.
Only the submitter of a proposal can take it back.


Regards, Oliver.

> I understand that everybody is sick and tired of the numbering issue and so I kind of understand your emotional
> communication.
> 
> I'm sorry that this ended up on the public TC mailinglist.
> 
> ~Florian
> 
> 
> 
>>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems <Oliver-Rainer.Wittmann@Sun.COM> 03/26/07 12:27 PM >>>
> Florian Reuter wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> wrt. to Oliver analysis.
>>
>> I posted a "consensus proposal" as basis for consensus discussion some time ago. This consens was not apprechiated by
>> Oliver and Thomas. So the consensus is "off the table" I guess.
>>
>> So it makes no sense that Oliver evaluated the reqs wrt. to the consensus proposal, which in fact may have some
> problems
>> in it. Again, it was meant to be a starting point for a consensus discussion. 
>>
> 
> I take this statement as very bad habit and as destructive work, because:
> - you never takes back your proposal, which you have posted with your 
> consensus suggestion, until now.
> - you didn't tell me, that I had evaluated the in your eyes wrong 
> proposal on *last Thursday noon (MET)*. I had send you my evaluation of 
> your proposal in advance before I posted it 8 1/2 hours later on the 
> mailing list in order to give you the possibility to give me early feedback.
> 
> I'm personally very disappointed about the fact, that I have again find 
> out, that constructive collaboration with you isn't possible.
> 
>> So when you refer to my proposal please refer to the "original one" and not the "consensus suggestion".
>>
> 
> Which one is your "original one"?
> The last one, which you've posted - see 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200703/msg00262.html -, 
> doesn't equal any of the previously posted ones.
> 
> 
> Regards, Oliver.
> 



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]