From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Nov 30 2004 - 10:42:09 CST
On 30/11/2004 14:55, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 14:05 +0000 2004-11-30, Peter Kirk wrote:
> There are a number of people, yourself included, who are actively,
> either maliciously or from ignorance, misrepresenting the relationship
> between the UTC and WG2, and of the standardization process, under the
> guise of "innocent" discussion. ...
I have merely been asking searching questions, partly from ignorance I
agree. If you or anyone else considers that I have been misrepresenting
the relationship, you are free to correct me.
> ... It is my personal opinion that none of that discussion should be
> taken at face value, for it seems clear that its hidden agenda is to
> discredit the expertise of the UTC and WG2 in order to shed bad light
> on the work we do, whether in general or with regard to particular
> items in the standardization process.
The not so hidden agenda is that I wish to clarify what happens now that
certain parts of the WG2 amendment have been rejected with comments by
influential ISO members. I wish to ensure that these comments will be
taken seriously in WG2 discussions. I do wish to shed bad light on your
decision on one particular item, because I consider that item to be
technically incorrect. But please don't take technical disagreement as
an ad hominem matter. I have nothing against you personally, I just
disagree with you on some technical matters.
> My comment was, it should be said, intended for Doug Ewell alone, and
> it was an error on my part to have sent it to the list. My comment was
> intended to encourage him not to waste his energy on fruitless
I accept your apology.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 30 2004 - 12:09:02 CST