[NCSG-Discuss] NCSG members and the closed generic issue

[Avri Doria]

"Cranky?"  Cute!

Though I do  think the wording of the statement is really up to those singing it and not those not signing.  I under that you will not sign it.  Should you be saying you would love to sign it if wasn't so cranky, then by all means lets talk.  But if you have no intention of signing, then please write a counter statement calling this one cranky.

I do not think you can insist we call it a minority statement since we really do not know that.  We know that it is not a consensus statement and that the SG is divided on the issue.  It is, quite truthfully a statement by a group of NCSG members.

avri




On 4 Mar 2013, at 22:23, David Cake wrote:

> Yes, I agree with Ron on this point.  
> 
> I absolutely am pleased that there is an NCSG statement putting this position - it is great to see that we can deal with internal disagreements.
> 
> The language used, however, doesn't read like a statement of a minority position - it feels like a cranky continuation of internal argument by different means. Misrepresentation of opposing positions, so that you can then argue against the caricatured version, accusations of opponents being 'hysterical'. Frankly I expect better of most of the signers.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 	David
> 
> 
> On 05/03/2013, at 10:36 AM, Ron Wickersham <rjw at ITSMYINTERNET.ORG> wrote:
>>  i especially find that the wording borders
>> on "bullying" when you state that "we find these claims to be hysterical..."
>> i don't recall hysterical language being used by dissenting views posted
>> on the mailing list.   i find the use of emotional language unpersuasive
>> and unfitting in a position document.
>> 
>> would it be impolite to ask that the title be changed and the content
>> modified to limit the scope of general support/consensus implied on the full membership of the NCSG?
>> 
>> -ron wickersham
>