Re: followup to my time-management question

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

Thanks for your suggestions.

Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:

> Ideally, you should ask your question(s) at the begining
> of the campaigning period, or maybe immediately before,
> rather than half way through.

I'll do this.

> If you're going to be providing "answers" for people
> who don't respond to your satisfaction, do this as soon
> as possible, rather than waiting for the voting period
> to start.
>
> I wouldn't wait longer than a week after your initial post
> to pose such surrogate answers.  

I won't do this.  I'll do it just before the end of the discussion
period instead of just after, if that's a new rule for non-candidates.
(Though, note, Manoj's email said that the rule only customary anyway,
and only for the candidates.)

The point is to expect and require the candidates to give their *own*
straightfoward estimation of their work, and not just say "hey, you
got me wrong here and here".  I want the candidates to say, "I did
this well, I did that poorly, etc."  

In other words, I'm happy to change it next time to deal with those
candidates who failed to answer because they didn't see it or didn't
know my intentions.  I wasn't trying to trick anyone.

But I'm not happy to change it to produce a different dynamic, where
it becomes about my estimations rather than the candidates'.

So I'll happily post it earlier, and with a clear indication of my
intentions, but I'm not going to post my estimations in lieu of the
candidates' until the end.

> If you do feel it necessary to add coments after (or
> immediately before) the voting period has started, they
> should be wrapped in heavy disclaimers.  

I believe I did in fact have such disclaimers, in the form of an exact
statement of just what the data is and where it came from.  I assume
Debian people are intelligent enough to look at that and give it
whatever weight they think appropriate.  Anyone who just looks at the
"executive summary" and thinks that I am favoring this or that
candidate, and then actually changes their vote on that alone, is
probably not smart enough to be voting.