Mitch.Bradley@ENG.SUN.COM (05/08/91)
> > So tell us which sections are vague and fuzzy so we can fix them! > > I did, Mitch, and I got yelled at for my efforts. In Detroit I stated quite > clearly that I did not understand the meaning of the Locals section; both > the intent and the implementation were unclear to me. This led to a > somewhat emotional outburst on the part of the author of that section > (an intelligent guy whose work I greatly respect, but who didn't help > matters in this instance). Brad, From what I recall of that discussion, your main position was not whether we should improve the description of locals, and how best to do it. As I recall, you were proposing that we should delete the LOCALS wordset, using the "unclear description" argument in support of that proposal. Furthermore, this issue was discussed in the context of an extended discussion in which you were suggesting that we should undo a lot of our previous work; much of it involving compromises that were reached only after long and arduous debates involving stronly-held conflicting opinions. I really believe that if you had brought up the clarity issues in a constructive manner, rather than as part of an effort to torpedo locals (which are in because a LOT of people reallyreallyreallyreally want them), then the outcome of the discussion would have been entirely different. Supporting evidence: of the many proposals that you brought from the Ontario FIG chapter, the ones involving rewording for clarity were almost universally accepted, in a pleasant and constructive working environment. It is unfortunate that humans sometimes get mad and yell. The person you are referring to is particularly prone to it, although I cannot claim to entirely free from that sin myself. Most of us on the committee have eventually gotten used to it; it appears to be an inevitable side effect of long passionate debates between strong-willed people. Mitch.Bradley@Eng.Sun.COM