[odf-discuss] What is actually necessary and found only in
marbux at gmail.com
Sat May 26 20:11:12 EDT 2007
OK, I think I am homing in on the problem. It is the difference in which
archives you look. I have apparently erred in stating that I found a few of
the relevant posts last week in the archive I discuss. I must have then been
looking at the archive Thomas linked to.
The archive I discussed is the archive for comments on the spec primarily
intended for use by non-TC members. Posts to that list are auto-forwarded to
TC members. I have confirmed with the Wayback Machine that this archive
apparently never did contain the subject threads and posts.
I apologize for any discomfort my error may have caused to others. However,
I do hope that people who are concerned will go back and read what I did
say. I did not, as Thomas has suggested, make any accusations of wrongdoing
whatsoever. That does not, however, excuse my error. Again, I apologize.
I will also suggest to OASIS staff that public TC and SC lists should be
linked from the committee home pages. At the very least, the link titles to
the comment archives ("Comments and archives") needs more clarity. A link to
"Mail list directory," the master list of public OASIS list archives, from
far down lengthy left sidebar on the site template is a poor location,
particularly with a word that implies it is a single mailing list that is
linked. A link in the right sidebar would be more appropriate, titled with
something like "List Archives for all OASIS Committees' Work." I suspect
that I am not the only one who has been misled by the lack of better
descriptiveness and the burying of the correct link in the left sidebar..
On 5/26/07, marbux <marbux at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/07, Thomas Zander <zander at kde.org> wrote:
> > The 'all TC members participating on the TC under Foundation
> > sponsorship'
> > is a plain falsehood as I see various mails from you, me, Bruce and
> > others there just fine on first glance.
> From the link you included at the end of your post, I can see that you are
> not looking at the same archive I am. I'm going to the TC *public* home page
> at < http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office>.
> From there I am clicking on "comments archive" in the right sidebar. In the
> resulting archive, the situation is as I described.
> On the Metadata *public* SC home page at <
> if I click on the "comments archive" link I get a 404 "not found" error
> Approximately a week ago, I visited both of the same archives at the same
> site locations to get links to a few of my posts so I could refer someone
> else to them who is not a TC member. The posts were there. They are now
> gone, as are all of the other posts I described before. But many other posts
> Maybe you have a local problem.
> I can imagine no scenario in which a problem at my end would produce such
> a result. Can you? And what do you see when you view the archives I was
> looking at?
> But wheather that is true or not is not
> > the point, the point is that you made a very serious accusation and a
> > quick skimming of the evidence shows evidence to the contrary.
> I made no accusation. I stated facts and stated them neutrally. I did not
> express any opinion whatsoever about the facts. And I did not even suggest
> that it had been done deliberately. I said:
> "Maybe there is an innocent explanation. Maybe there isn't. I do know that
> OASIS had a meltdown on its list server a couple of years ago. But I also
> know that posts that were in the TC archive a week ago are gone now and the
> Metadata SC list archives were there then too."
> You are reading something into my statements that I never said.
> Have you totally forgotten how to be constructive and how to withhold
> > judgment until all the facts are in? Oh, and how to not state sweeping
> > statements that may or may not be partially true?
> I have no idea as to to what you refer when you use the phrase, "how to be
> constructive." Please be more specific so I may frame a response. And to
> precisely which "sweeping statements" do you refer? How can I possibly
> respond to that? A few days ago you chided me on the Advocacy TC list for
> not being concise, for being far too detailed in my posts. Now you jump on a
> horse running in the other direction and accuse me of making "sweeping
> statements" -- without identifying any specific statement you brand with
> that generality -- which my brain computes to a "sweeping statement" that
> you just made. If you do not see the humor in that, please understand that I
> do not either.
> > Gary Edwards has been posting to that list since 2002. Now he has 53
> > > posts left for the entire period and none in 2007. (Google site search
> > > statistics)
> > Here is one;
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200705/msg00001.html
> Wrong archive.
> So, I repeat, please don't spread FUD.
> From western Oregon it seems that you were the one who leapt to a judgment
> before the facts were in. I did not. In fact, I spent a bit of time
> yesterday discussing the situation with another person who also checked the
> TC archive and saw no more than I did. We are both scratching our heads.
> I am concerned that the posts are gone. I am not nearly so concerned with
> why they are gone except to the extent that might help the lists maintainer
> figure out how to avoid the same problem again. On the other hand, if it was
> a deliberate act, as I said I am perfectly able to repost the threads or
> post them somewhere other than the OASIS site. The public is supposed to be
> able to find the right archive from a committee's home page. We are supposed
> to be able to link to posts in those archives. Now there is link rot.
> Thomas, I do not deal in irresponsible accusations. If I accuse someone,
> I've got the evidence to prove it in my hand. If I don't have the evidence,
> I don't make the accusation. I had no basis for accusing anyone of
> wrongdoing in regard to the list archives. Am I suspicious? Yes, I am,
> mildly. You don't practice law very long if you don't learn to question
> everything, right down to individual punctuation marks. But even were the
> disappearance of the posts the result of a deliberate act, I have much
> bigger fish to fry, as they say. It wouldn't be worth more than a footnote
> in what I am working on, if that.
> Over the last few days, I'm getting the the impression that you are angry
> with me. If that is the case, I would like to work it out with you. I would
> much rather be your friend than your enemy.
> Best wishes,
> Best regards,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the odf-discuss