> > > I don't want to upset anybody for any reason. I regret that my
> > > words
> > > have upset you, but I think that they were misinterpreted in a
> > > way
> > > that I couldn't possibly have predicted. The particular aspect of
> >
> > I strongly object to that. It's pretty obvious to me that
> > addressing
> > people in third person is very offending.
>
> So, you object to him referring to you in the third person in an
> email,
> and you object to him saying it was "misinterpreted". Are you going
> to
> object to my email too?
No, of course not. And sorry for not being precise enough, I only
objected to the prediction part, but I agree, I take the objection
back. I guess it's as difficult for Peter to understand why this is
offensive as it is for me to not see it as such.
> I think it might have been in the third person because at that point,
> Peter didn't expect a reply from you, and put you on the "TO" line
> merely as a courtesy. He could have put out an email about reverting
> the patch without you on the email header at all, I guess --- then he
> could have referred to you without offending you.
Right, that was my only problem originally. It seemed difficult to
bring that point over.
> Let me be practical here --- the more someone has to be chased for a
> reply, the less confidence they have in that person. If the RMT
> contacts you about something, and obviously they have had to take
> usual
> efforts to contact you, the more it is on you to give a full report
> and
> a timeline of when you will address the issue. If they had to chase
> you
> around, and you gave them a short answer, the less confidence they
> have
> in this getting resolved in a timely manner.
Again agreed, please keep in mind, though, that I didn't notice I was
being chased until Peter's first email.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De
Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
