[Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29

[Thomas Dalton]

On 1 May 2010 02:23, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
> As long as we're on the topic of etiquette, I find it frustrating when
> people pick out one particular bit to reply to and ignore the broader
> point. I add that only because I'm not sure if this was part of your
> intentional policy against niceness, or a more accidental sort.

I reply to those parts of a message that I have something to say in
response to. I try to keep my correspondence concise (which, before
anyone comments, doesn't necessarily mean short!), so I don't reply to
something if I don't have anything to say that would further the
discussion. This may be because I agree with what has been said, that
I have no strong opinions on the matter, that I disagree but don't
think I'm likely to change anybody's mind or any number of other
reasons. I could reply purely to make my opinions known, but I don't
see any benefit in people knowing my opinion just for the sake of it.
(If them knowing my opinion is likely to make them take different
action that I consider better, that would be a reason to reply.) If I
have relevant factual information, then I will usually share it (for
example, this email is sharing an explanation of my actions - that is
relevant factual information). If it makes you feel better, you can
assume I agree with anything I don't explicitly disagree with - it's
not an accurate assumption, but it will rarely do any harm.

Incidentally, I don't have a policy against niceness, just a lack of a
policy in favour of it. I rarely go out of my way to offend people
(sometimes it is an effective way of getting their attention, but
rarely, since negative attention is usually of limited use).