Re: Questions for the DPL candidates
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> I'd like to split that into two questions: are we going to spend time
> discussing their conclusions, and are we going to spend time flaming
> over their conclusions? I certainly think we should discuss them,
> especially if there are disagreements or details that need working
> out; but there's a difference between that and the sort of "argh,
> they're stealing my beloved project out from under me" stuff that
> seems to appear with rather dull monotony.
Do we get to ask that their conclusions be made and explained and
defended publicly? That's all I want. It happened nicely with
respect to the Vancouver meeting. Lots of people went ballistic for
what seem to me to be insane reasons. The Vancouver meeting is an
example of things working well. People all affected by a situation
talking, sorting out a possible solution, and then explaining and
defending it publicly. And, I expect, adjusting the result after the
public discussion has brought more light on it.
What is sad is that there are many decisions in the Project which are
*not* made this way. I want a DPL that will promise to tell every
team "you must explain and defend your decisions". It's an excellent
precendent, this Vancouver meeting, and I want to see more of it.
I note, for example, that I have asked you a direct question in
response to your promise that a simple non-attacking direct question
will get a reply, and you have not yet replied. I don't know if
that's because you were heading to Vancouver or not.
I have sent two further questions to a team in Debian in the past week
which have received no replies, and the question was simply, "can you
let me know what your plans are in doing task XXX so that I can plan
my work more effectively." I don't know if that team doesn't care if
I'm able to plan my work or not.
Thomas
Reply to: