Re: [Model-t] draft-arkko-farrell-arch-model-t-00

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 06/11/2019 18:06, Dominique Lazanski wrote:
> Hiya,
> 
> There is a third draft on this topic which you neglected to include
> in your presentation from Montreal. 

Are you complaining that a presentation to introduce a
discussion did not comprehensively refer to every single
mention of the topic or something? If so, I guess that
seems a bit odd to me.

> That is the draft that I
> submitted and second version of which will be posted shortly. Please
> see the attached screenshot of drafts which does not include the one
> I wrote and the attached email as well as the video from minute 44
> where I mention my draft and my willingness to collaborate with you.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkoGWtdZZAw&feature=youtu.be&t=2275
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkoGWtdZZAw&feature=youtu.be&t=2275>
>
>  The logical thing to do would be work together and combine all three
> - now two - drafts into one with all three of us as authors.

Perhaps or perhaps not. I think it's entirely valid for
Jari and I to choose the content of an individual draft
that we co-authored. If you disagree perhaps that's a
topic you might be better taking elsewhere, e.g. to
[e-mail] perhaps, as I'm sure other authors of
individual drafts would like to know that such (new to
me) expectations exist for some people.

Meanwhile, can you or Bret please clarify how you got to
"I see content from it has been incorporated" (where "it"
is your draft I assune).

What exact content do you mean?

If we did inadvertently include some text without reference
I'd be keen to correct that. If we did not (which I think
is the case) then I'd like that accusation (more the case
for Bret's mail than yours) cleared up please.

Thanks,
S.




> 
> Thanks, Dominique
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 6 Nov 2019, at 16:33, Stephen Farrell
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 05/11/2019 14:45, Bret Jordan wrote:
>>> Taking her ideas and words and refactoring them in to a new draft
>>> is just wrong.
>> 
>> I have no idea what you're on about. The draft Jari posted is just
>> a merge of the separate drafts he and I posted for the DEDR
>> workshop some months ago.
>> 
>> If there is some accusation in your text above, then I think it's
>> be stylish to retract it and a bit naff to fail to do so.
>> 
>> Thanks, S.
>> 
>> 
>> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>
> 
> 
>