discuss: Re: [Fwd: Re: LSM in Bordeaux]
Subject:
Re: [Fwd: Re: LSM in Bordeaux]
From:
####@####.####
Date:
13 Jul 2004 20:58:59 -0000
Message-Id: <20040713205856.GA5903@tigreraye.nulle.part>
On 2004-07-13 17:34:22 -0300, Jorge Godoy wrote :
> On Tuesday 13 July 2004 16:16, Jean-Philippe Guérard wrote:
> > On 2004-07-13 15:41:06 -0300, Jorge Godoy wrote :
> > > On Tuesday 13 July 2004 15:30, Jean-Philippe Guérard wrote:
> > > > Now the discussion is not advancing anymore. We exchanged
> > > > several mails with Guylhem Aznar. Now we are in contact with
> > > > Jorge Godoy and we seem to restart from the beginning. We have
> > > > stated clearly that we wanted to stay independent, but that we
> > > > are ready to cooperate with the LDP.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, but to clarify I'm in contact with nobody.
> >
> > OK. Sorry for the confusion. I guess we were all expecting an
> > answer from Guylhem Aznar.
>
> Actually, he should say something soon, but when emailing a public
> mailing list you should expect an answer from anyone there.
This is what I was expecting. No problem.
> This is what I said on my last message with the attempt to clarfy that
> I was not talking to you in any other means than this mailing list.
Yes. I should have made it clear. Sorry.
> > > I just answered your email at the TLDP public mailing list. Only
> > > this. Any message posted to a public mailing list can be answered
> > > by any of its members at any time... This is what happened.
> >
> > It's perfectly your right to do so. I'm not contesting it, nor
> > criticizing you in any way.
> >
> > If you understood it that way, please accept my apologies.
>
> I was just making it clear for everybody who is reading that I wasn't
> talking to you in private, as Guylhem seemed to do. And I wasn't
> speaking in TLDP's name. I would never do that without consulting the
> staff people before.
Since you are a member of the staff list, I had no way to know you did
not speak with the staff list prior to answering us.
So please excuse me for the confusion.
> Starting something with dubious interpretations is not what I think to
> be a good thing for documentation teams and documentation writers and
> this is why I cited only the first paragraph of this message and
> answered your second message.
>
> > > Don't presume that people who answers your questions are talking
> > > in the organization's name or assuming from somewhere where
> > > another person left.
> >
> > Well, it is very difficult for me to understand how the TLDP is
> > organised. I've been trying to find an organisation chart on the
> > web site, but did not find it.
>
> Basically all "hard" decisions are taken at the staff mailing list.
> There are people in charge of some tasks --- e.g. Sergiusz with the
> CVS ---, and doing it on a daily basis. There are also reports from
> donations we got, etc. When there's something for which a consensus
> was not achieved or something too polemical, Guylhem *also* (not
> alone) say something or give his opinion, as the project leader.
> There has never been --- since I remember, at least --- any
> imposition.
>
> Then, there are the teams by themselves, with their own structure and
> this public mailing list, where everything fits :-)
>
> It's like I told you on my previous post: you don't have to change
> anything at all in your organization to fit with TLDP. It's almost
> just a matter of having your team leader to join us and start
> discussing things.
>
> > This message was not intended against you or against anybody. I'm
> > trying to clarify the situation between the TLDP and us.
>
> I see. But lets try writing it clearly. It seemed that I was somehow
> commited with the process of your integration with us or something
> like that.
>
> > I think your message was quite nice, but it was out of focus of the
> > discussion.
>
> OK. No problem, even though I can't see anything prior to your message
> on this mailing list.
But, indeed, there was something:
http://lists.tldp.org/index.cgi?1:msp:7499:200406:nkdddagomidaflcldhcf
This discussion dived into private mail as Guylhem Aznar answered us.
After he suggested that we could post his messages to a public mail list
(even if the list he had in mind was not discuss), we opted for a more
open discussion on the discuss list.
> There was, indeed, something at the private staff mailing list,
Could you be more precise? What do you mean?
> but since you moved it to a public mailing list, it seemed to me that
> you were requesting for public opinions.
It was and still is the case.
Let me be clear. We did not want to criticize you. I am presenting you
my personnal sincere apologies.
We'll be happy to read all answer and comments.
Now, please read back my message skipping the part where I mention your
name. And we'll start again from here.
--
Jean-Philippe Guérard
Vice-president of the Traduc.org association
http://www.traduc.org
