Enrico Zini wrote: > I just went back to the mail archive of that time and stopped reading > after a while because of anger rising: lots of good efforts have been > done, and the instant reaction to those was in various case absolutely > disappointing. It's all stuff you can't put in a report: you just have > to swallow, be patient, keep insisting, try new things, "this is going > to be a long-term one". Would it be possible to illistrate this with a few examples? > X: but that isn't fair, we HAVE been doing things! > Y: how do you argue that, without disclosing A, B and C? > X: sucks. > Y: sucks. So why is everything that the DPL is involved in so secretive that they cannot disclose it to the project? It seems that we have a DPL election period where all the candidates try to be very open about where they want to take the project, followed by a DPL term where everything happens in private. Why can the DPL only effectively lead in private? Isn't there a big disconnect there? Anyone else not like this at all? > So we waited until we had something big to show. And that's were we > found out that when something big happens, even if the DPL has been > putting lots of efforts in talking people into making it happen, they > never happen in the name of the DPL. They would if it were clear that the DPL had led the project to this happening, in public[1], surely? -- see shy jo [1] Which can after all, include debian-private.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature