(1) Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.
(2) Make “speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of per sonal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate “patriotic” comments.
(3) When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committees as large as possible — never less than five.
(4) Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
(5) Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
(6) Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
(7) Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reasonable” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.
(8) Be worried about the propriety of any decision — raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.
Dear John@Adobe, if you did due diligence, then you already would have talked to the people at Adobe that participates in the working group, have found out exactly what was said on the email lists, and would have posted all the details and an apology for holding up the work due to minor process details. And you would have ensured us, that such behavior will never again be seen from Adobe.
What you did was to post an almost-ad-hominen attack, calling names such as "total ignorance/laziness", lack of "due diligence". Your only 'content' is quotes from 2 blogs that says Adobe is a nice kid without telling the details about what happened, what the w3c emails said.
When Hixie says "blocked by Adobe", you better come up with better arguments than "these 2 guys I've selected myself says that Adobe is a nice kid". If anybody knows anything about html5, it is Hixie. He has done an incredible job getting html5 forward, and he has fully earned his respect.
http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1265967771&count=1
And you would have pointed out, that Adobe would from now on take a back seat and not veto the canvas and other new html5 features as Adobe isn't a browser vendor.
I was going to post that I doubted the authenticity of this quote, since its style struck me as overly modern and all the sources on the web seemed to trace back to one talk from a 2008 conference. But then I googled the document's apparent title ("Simple Sabotage Field Manual") and discovered what appears to be the original:
Skimming around this thing is pretty interesting. They recommend plugging sewage systems by flushing sponges down toilets. And here is part of how they recommend setting fire to a factory:
To make another type of simple fuse, soak one end of a piece of string in grease. Rub a generous pinch of gunpowder over the inch of string where greasy string meets clean string. Then ignite the clean end of the string. It will burn slowly without a flame (in much the same way that a cigarette burns) until it reaches the grease and gunpowder; it will then flare up suddenly.
Sounds pretty authentic to me. Which makes the original quote all the greater. It opens a new possible explanation for the inefficiency of large companies, too: they're full of saboteurs!
The genius of that strategy is that many dysfunctional organizations already have people who work this way, so if you start imitating them, nobody will suspect that you have an ulterior motive.
True, but you're really dodging the issue here which is the current dysfunctional Congress. There have been a record number of filibusters this past year; Congress hasn't been so divided since the Civil War. Requiring 60 votes (the number required to prevent a filibuster) to pass a bill is against the intentions of the founders. In all cases where more than a majority is required, the founders explicitly noted the ratio (ex: the confirmation of treaties). No ratio is specified for the passage of bills or the confirmation of appointments. Whatever it going on in Congress today, it's not something that was intended by the founders. Hell, filibusters weren't even put into the Senate rules until the early 1900s.
Personally I think the Dems should exercise the nuclear option and amend the constitution to require 3/5 for appointments to the Supreme Court. They used to be confirmed by that much anyway; it's most been under GW Bush that we've had Court appointees pass by narrow margins. Cliton had over 90 votes for all of his and most of Reagan's were unanimous. GW never broke 60.
You're right that the current Congresses have been extraordinary in their dysfunction, but a little late on your timeline for Supreme Court appointment battles: Reagan's Bork was shot down 42-58, GHWB's Thomas was confirmed 52-48, with both debates waged in the media.
In the times of 90-vote confirmations, horse-trading of variegated appointees just went on behind closed doors. Now that things are so fractured, a president can only get away with nominating a slate of judges all partially partisan in the same direction.
It wouldn't be the constitution being amended anyway, just Senate procedural rules, but Harry Reid is never going to go for that.
You're right that the current Congresses have been extraordinary in their dysfunction, but a little late on your timeline for Supreme Court appointment battles: Reagan's Bork was shot down 42-58, GHWB's Thomas was confirmed 52-48, with both debates waged in the media.
Obviously I'm aware of Bork and Thomas but they are irrelevant to my point. My point is that, in general, we usually confirmed justices by a large margin. That hasn't happened for 3 appointments in a row. 2 Exceptions in the last few decades doesn't make my point any less valid.
In the times of 90-vote confirmations, horse-trading of variegated appointees just went on behind closed doors. Now that things are so fractured, a president can only get away with nominating a slate of judges all partially partisan in the same direction.
The idea that a president has to nominate a partisan set of judges is not correct. All of GW's nomiations were conservative.
It wouldn't be the constitution being amended anyway, just Senate procedural rules, but Harry Reid is never going to go for that.
No, I meant what I said when I called it a constitution amendment. 3/5 to confirm a justice should be in the Constitution. The founders failed to foresee how politicized the Court would become.
Do you not know what partisan means? Yes, all of GWB's nominations were conservative partisans.
In the before time, it was common to give and take: GHWB did the centrist Souter along with batshitinsane Thomas, Reagan did the fairly centrist O'Connor and Kennedy along with the far-right genius Scalia.
http://boingboing.net/2008/06/11/sabotage-manual-from.html
(1) Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions. (2) Make “speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of per sonal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate “patriotic” comments. (3) When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committees as large as possible — never less than five. (4) Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible. (5) Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions. (6) Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision. (7) Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reasonable” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on. (8) Be worried about the propriety of any decision — raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.
Slightly uncanny resemblance.