On 25/02/2014 19:39, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 2/25/2014 11:23 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
"I suggest in London that you assign only maximum 10 minutes
present per WG draft and maximum 5 minute for individual draft
(as limit policy). We need to use more input and have more face2face
(F2F) discussion in our meeting. I remember we discussed this before
...."
Although that text started with the word "suggestion", the
text construction is that of an instruction.
Instruction? Huh? That characterization warrants careful
explanation. Please provide it.
The note 1) made a suggestion, and 2) Stated a need. It implied that
implementing the change would remedy the need.
What part of that qualifies as "instruction" rather than, for example,
explanation?
There was nothing tutorial, parental or authoritative in the note
making the suggestion. Everything focusing on background and presence
or lack of expertise was introduced by others, in response. Hence, ad
hominem.
d/
Dave
First, please can I request that you take a less harassing approach to
this discussion.
I explained how I interpreted that that text when I first read it.
That was a personal interpretation of the text on first reading,
and as such requires no further explanation.
As to the later context concerning the original posters remarks:
I was already fully aware that London would be their first F2F
meeting when I read the OP, and I am fairly confident that
Lloyd also had that context before he posted.
So, please consider that
1) There was widely shared prior context in the early
discussion.
2) That everyone sees text though their personal lenses
coloured by both experience and context and will interpret
it accordingly.
In the case of this text construct itself, I read it as an instruction
because that is the style of text I might have written if I were
issuing an instruction to the RTG WG Chairs as their AD.
- Stewart