'scuse front posting, but I'm going to outrageously summarise
Pete's point as "I want substance in all Last Call comments", or
alternatively "I will ignore +1 just as I will ignore -1".
That isn't unreasonable, but personally I would interpret "I've
read it and I think it's good work" as substantive, especially
if it comes from a known expert. YMMV
Regards
Brian
On 12/06/2013 08:31, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 6/11/13 3:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Pete,
On 12/06/2013 07:45, Pete Resnick wrote:
It's interesting to see that people are interpreting me to mean I want
more text. I don't. I want less. Save your breath. There is no reason to
send one line of support, and it only encourages the view that we're
voting. Details below.
Just to test what you are saying, let me ask the following.
Oooo...I love a test.
How would you react to one that says something like:
"I've read the draft, and I've considered Joe Blow's objection, but I
still support publication of the draft" (*not" followed by a reasoned
rebuttal of Joe Blow's argument)?
I would be rather grumpy with such a message. If there's an outstanding
(reasonable) objection to a document, I need to know why to consider
that argument in the rough. I'd have to ask for more detail from the
sender. If the response I get back is, "I figured it was obvious why Joe
Blow was full of crap", I'd ask, "Then why did you bother posting?" If
the sender happens to be an expert (and Joe Blow is not), I'm still not
going to take it at face value that Joe Blow is wrong. If I did, Joe
would be well within rights to appeal because his argument got blown off.
So, if you're saying something that is perfectly obvious, no need to say
it. But if it's not perfectly obvious, I do want more text.
pr