On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:59:44 -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz <jimmy@debian.org> wrote: > No, but they did provide quite a detailed response to what they're doing for > Debian, as you did, and they paid quite a significant sum toward their costs by > the standards of many Debian Developer budgets, despite not properly explaining > what they could afford or not (which still dinged them). > > > I am grateful for my presence in queue A, since it allowed me to get > > funding for travel to the conference. But i don't think i gave any more > > financial justification for my need than Clint did. So i appear to have > > failed a basic input myself. > > > > I do note that i'm more verbose than Clint (in everything, not just > > penta). If verbosity in application is a relevant criterion for getting > > travel sponsorship, perhaps that should be made clear to future > > applicants, so that the naturally terse among us aren't unduly penalized? > > I really feel in a difficult spot here, since I've already bent herb team > confidentiality as far as I feel comfortable going without asking permission, > but quoting his response in full would really be necessary to publicly > demonstrate the difference. Clint, is that okay? When the rationale, for some reason, continues to be that Clint did not answer the second question, I don't think its particularly germane or illustrative to compare Clint's answer to the first question to dkg's. A more interesting comparison is to compare Clint's response to Joerg's (just to pick one, not to pick on Joerg) - because Joerg didn't fill it out *at all*. One of them was on the herb team this year, and one was not. One received requested travel sponsorship and one did not. > In the absence of that permission, I'll just say that his response was not just > terse. It literally did not assert anything that would not be true of an > entirely inactive and wealthy Debian Developer. His answer was not specific to > him in any way whatsoever, except in that he's one of the many people in Debian > it applies to. That's qualitatively, not just quantitatively, different from > both your response and the aforementioned herb team member's. dkg did not provide the second part of the question either, but for some reason, Clint's failure to do that was important, while dkg's failure was not. I do not agree with your analysis of the first part of Clint's response (which I have read), but I feel like talking about the first part of the question, when the argument seems to be that Clint failed to provide the second part of a two part question is beside the point and moving the argument. Before we compare the relative merits of the first part of the question, resolving the inconsistancy of the assertion about the second part of the question is important, at least that is what has been asserted by everyone who has been arguing that is the reason why Clint failed to receive funding. So... either the argument that he did not receive funding because he failed to answer the second part of the question is wrong, or its not. If it is not, I'd like to hear why not because so far I have only seen pretty clear indication that it is wrong due to pretty wild inconsistancies in applying that argument to some people (Clint) and not others (dkg and Joerg). If the argument is wrong, then lets just say so rather than change the argument and get distracted by another argument. If you plan to respond to this by pointing out that there are always problems and there is no way to have a perfect result, don't bother, it has already been pointed out. Not only do we already know that, but I'm sorry but that is an insufficient reason to fail to reconsider when problems are uncovered and pointed out, which is what happened in this case when Clint pointed that out to herb. The response he received was he failed to fill out the second part of a two part question (which so far has been shown to be a faulty argument). Last year, when problems from the flawed system were reported to us, we reconsidered based on the information provided and the decision changed. It seems like this year that changes to things were also permitted after the deadline as well, so also please refrain from pointing out again that the deadline had passed. micah
Attachment:
pgpLoXifG2iwc.pgp
Description: PGP signature