[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Fsfe-uk] Just a Minute

From: hobbit
Subject: Re: [Fsfe-uk] Just a Minute
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 14:49:26 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i


On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 02:08:22PM +0100 or thereabouts, Martin Coxall wrote:
> > I WAS at Saturday's meeting (if you look at the list of those present, my
> > name is there). I guess I am "the secretary" you refer to above, in that I
> > took notes for group 2's discussion and for as much of the rest as I could
> > hear and extract salient points from. But I am not on the committee, I
> > simply did it because I thought it would help those that couldn't make it
> > to the meeting.
> Then you have no excuse. The minutes do not come even close to
> representing the basic thrust of the meeting and you know it.

As someone who wasn't there, will someone *please* tell me what the
hell was discussed that Martin Coxall feels didn't come across in
the notes? 

> Pah, I am not a petty bureaucrat. It's people like you that enjoy this
> sort of thing. The bloke from Linux Format may have taken some notes,

Minutes are not petty bureaucracy. They are a form of accountability
("just when did we decide that?" "didn't someone say they were going
to do that?" "I wasn't there. What was discussed?") and a way to make 
events transparent to those who weren't able to attend or who have 
come late to a project.

If you don't agree with the notes (which I consider notes rather
than minutes) then please please tell me and other lurkers what was
said in addition. Saying "you didn't mention it in the write-up" 
is no help to us: we don't know what "it" was. 

> but you know what we were talking about since your half joined in later,
> then made it clear that you found the discussion distasteful, then you
> fucked off to another pub. It's clear that since it was a fundamental
> discussion about the nature and philosophy of the organisation, you
> simply decided to pretend none of it ever happened at the meeting.
> > * If you're not happy with the notes, please do post amendments and
> >   corrections.
> I just did. I told you to stop writing the most significant discussions
> of the day out of the minutes.

That is hardly a correction. I still have _no idea_ what the bone
of contention was. What was the topic? 

> > * Otherwise, STFU.
> Nope. And if you pull this sort of nonsense again, I will pick you up on
> it again. There are more important things than meetings, committee,
> minutes, working, groups, liaisons, mailing list outreaches and
> teacher-geek free software interfaces.

For the second time today, you are replying with a "there are more 
important things than.." without saying _what they are_.

> Your attempt to ignore the wider reaches of Saturday's discussion and

Which were? 

> focus on the mundane does the AFFS a gross disservice. The bureaucrats
> are running the asylum, and it has only existed as a group for a few
> weeks. Sad, especially as this sort of thing doesn't have to happen. To
> quote Richard Stallman: "There are more important things than free
> software".

Third time. What are these more important things? The only homepage
I can find for you is about a television programme. The only other
posts of yours I can find are a wrangle on other mailing lists.

What is it that you think is being overlooked?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]