[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]