On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 17:46 -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote: > [...] I will point out that in > the email where the DPL made the delegation which he later withdrew, it > was clearly limited in scope to be about "the decision of which of the > two cities [i.e. EDI and SJJ] will host the next DebConf [i.e., > DebConf7]", and not related to anything else about DebConf. Similarly, > in his withdrawal email, he refers to the delegation as being about "the > decision on where to hold DebConf 2007" or "the venue decision". Check > the emails for yourself if you don't recall these details. > > It appears to me that him granting a delegation beyond what was already > the status quo and then removing it leaves the status quo unchanged from > before the delegation [...] Whatever the original intent of the delegation and withdrawal was, we now have to deal with the actual consequences of it. So while what you say is true, it's not the whole story. (Perhaps you don't know the whole story; I'm not blaming you for that...) I don't think it was hard to see where this was going at an early stage, and I believe Anthony was well aware of the risks when he decided to make the delegation and then withdraw it. The choice was between letting the team sort itself out internally, perhaps with mediators involved, and giving it a hard push from the outside. The latter was chosen, and it should come as no surprise that the "status quo" is no longer the same. I hope more thought and sensitivity to circumstances is put behind any further intervention. -- Fabian Fagerholm <fabbe@paniq.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part