Lodewijk,
There are no assumptions involved with the fact that longstanding community issues have been categorically excluded by the recent limited scope of the Foundation's Public Policy efforts. I am sorry that you are annoyed, but my sentiments are sincere and my opinion is that this turn of events is disappointing enough to warrant my choice of words. If you are offended by my words instead of the underlying issue, I am sorry, but I disagree with those priorities.
I continue to call for a review of Public Policy goals to align them with community priorities. Continued focus on a very limited subset of issues effecting only a tiny proportion of editors is completely unacceptable.
If you have actual evidence that my opinion "does not match reality at all" I would like to read it.
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015, L.Gelauff <
lgelauff@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi James,
it is already quite annoying that you so often introduce topics here that are seemingly barely relevant. But this kind of email and language is in my opinion out of line on a whole different level, and I would appreciate it if you could leave your (in this case, categorical) personal attacks and snidy remarks away. Not only are they totally irrelevant and do they not match reality at all, but they don't help your case either.
If there is any reason why people are ignoring you (and I have certainly that tendency nowadays), you should search the reason for that in the language of your emails, and the topics you bring up, rather than assume this is a general problem.
Lodewijk