On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 06:01:26PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote: > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:06:06AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:52:48AM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote: > > > [1] Which is a separate rant, and frankly, I think Debian needs to be > > > clear about what we really mean by "We won't hide probles" in our Social > > > Contract > > > > It's a literal statement. We won't hide them. As always with the > > social contract, do not attempt to assume the inverse is true. Just > > because we won't hide them does not mean we're committed to going out > > of our way to make them well-known and easy to understand. It is not a > > commitment to some higher notion of transparency, but rather merely to > > avoid *obstructing* transparency. > > > > Complaining that you didn't know what the issues with the NM process > > were is precisely equivalent to complaining that you didn't know about > > some random bug which nobody had filed. Nobody was hiding anything, > > it's just that nobody bothered to document the problem; they're very > > different things. > > I notice that you conveniently trimmed the portion of my statement that > went into detail about what I consider the core issue to be: what is meant > by "problems". It's irrelevant. > One could argue that failing to acknowledge, or do anything about, an > utter lack of transparency in our basic processes is, in fact, hiding > problems, by tacit acceptance and omission rather than deliberate > obfuscation. One could, but it would be stupid pointless word games. You might as well make similar complaints about tagging bugs as wontfix and closing them. I already told you once that this is *not* what it means. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature