RE: P1619: Errors happen
Laszlo,
> >> Publishing email addresses looks like a cheap way to silence
> >> someone in the reflector: the spammers do the dirty work for free.
>
> > I read this as an inappropriate, public and undeserved attack
>
> It does not do any good, if you take a sentence out of context and
> attributes it unintended meanings. You force me to explain it the
> fourth time: this sentence describes the danger of publishing email
> addresses on the reflector. I did NOT say any of the following:
> - Someone did it intentionally
> - It was an attempt to silence me
> - It has happened
Whether you intended your email to convey those meanings or not I do
not know, but I believe that your email did imply those meanings.
Text email is a delicate thing, there are none of the usual non-verbal
clues as to the intention and emotional state of the person talking.
A statement with an earnest expression on my face is very different
than the same statement with a frown on my face. That is lost in
email unless the email is carefully crafted. My suggestion is that
you work much harder at crafting your communications to others so as
to reduce the possibility of misunderstandings of your intent.
> > anyone using this email reflector to
> > publicly besmirch the reputation of any other member of this
> > group will not be tolerated.
>
> I have explained publicly already three times what I meant, but you
> still bring it up. What is your purpose? The sentence could be
> ambiguous or unclear, but it can hardly be a base of attacking someone
> (me), who learned English as a third language in his late forties. Dou
> you think attacking me with an out of context sentence does
> any good to my reputation, and it is just and fair?
The analogy that I use for communications might be valuable here, but
if not, please feel free to ignore it. The goal of clear communications
is to get a picture to form in the other person's mind. It is simply
irrelevant what the talker thinks they are saying, the only important
point is what picture the listener is forming in their mind. As the
talker, I need to use whatever words are required to get that picture
to form in the way that I want it to. Yes, this is reverse engineering
the listener's brain, which is why good communications takes lots of
work and thought. My opinion is that this is one of the very few
effective ways to engineer good inter-personal communications.
> > Because of the communications that I have received on this subject
> > stating that they felt your email was a personal attack on Shai I
> > have sent this email to the entire list and to the archive. If you
> > want to continue this discussion, take it off the reflector and
> > continue the discussion with Jack, Curtis (P1619 sponsors) as well as
> > Serge and myself.
>
> I disagree with your proposal. You mounted a public attack on me, based
> on an out of context citation from my email, after I explained publicly
> several times what it meant. It affects my reputation. Nevertheless, if
> the majority of the members of the WG think, this does not belong to
> the reflector, I have to obey. (That is, a perceived attack on one
> member's reputation is a public matter, but an actual attack
> on another member's reputation is private). So far it was only your request.
I do not believe that Jim, John, and my response to you is an attack. Your
original email was inappropriate and our response is what the "sponsor"
of a group should do, enforce the rules of professional conduct and make
it clear to all concerned that the email in question was not appropriate
and that future occurences of similar content will not be tolerated. Note
that "all concerned" includes everyone on the email reflector as they were
witness to the bad behavior and need to know that steps have been taken to
protect them from recurrence.
Please do not confuse the voting that happens as part of developing a
standard with voting on how a working group functions internally. The
IEEE has legal responsibilities to working group members and in return
for those responsibilities has authority over how working groups conduct
themselves. Professional conduct in meetings and email is not one of
those things that is open to consensus or to debate.
Thanks,
Curtis