Re: Walnut Creek letter

---------

Eric S. Raymond (esr@locke.ccil.org)
Fri, 6 Jan 1995 21:35:25 -0500 (EST)

> Aren't you putting that group in a catch-22 situation here? If
> someone doesn't like it as is, they certainly shouldn't sign on to it.
> But now if they want to make suggestions for changes which would make
> it acceptable, you've denied them the right to participate, and so the
> changes won't ever be made, and therefore they'll never sign on. And so on.
>
> I was almost willing to sign on, but I'm appalled at what I perceive to
> be your attitude here. If you expect me to sign onto something I don't
> necessarily agree to *before* accepting any suggestions I might have
> for improving it, I don't want to be involved.

A fair objection. I see I expressed myself poorly. To be more precise,
almost all suggestions for significant change came from people who made
it clear up front that they disagreed with the underlying premises and
could not be induced to sign by minor modifications of the text.

If you were `almost willing to sign on', I take it you agree on the
underlying rights theory. That given, I will accept any suggestions you wish
to make and give them careful attention.

-- 
					Eric S. Raymond <esr@locke.ccil.org>
Temporary, we're having DNS trouble ->  WWW: http://www.ccil.org/~esr/home.html

[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]

---------

faq-admin@landfield.com

© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved