On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 07:14:39PM +0000, Will Newton wrote:
> On Saturday 21 Feb 2004 4:59 pm, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 04:40:49PM +0000, Will Newton wrote:
> > > We WILL NOT reject for:
> > > - Political opinions
> > Err, yes we will. That's what the philosophy ("Do you agree with the
> > social contract?") tests are all about. Do we really want to give people
> > who think, say, "Free software is evil" the ability to vote the rest of
> > us out of the project?
> You seem to be having problems retaining context in your messages:
> "Even these few examples are of course fraught with difficulty."
> I did not explicitly mention your point,
Then why are you complaining? In a discussion people are allowed to cover
points more in depth, aren't they?
> > If you're really interested in improving n-m, why not become an AM
> > and both get some experience on the topic, and demonstrate that you're
> > competent enough to have good opinions and be trusted?
> Because I have really awful bandwidth and find it difficult to review even
> moderately sized packages (getting better bandwidth involves moving house).
Amazing. If you're not going to do the work, why do you think your opinion
matters at all? If the people who are doing the work want your opinion, I'm
sure they'll ask for it.
> Regardless, I find your stance of "ignore all my suggestions then question my
> competence and trustworthiness" to be rather unpleasant.
Working out who to accept and reject is an obviously controversial task,
it's also one Debian and our users rely on rather heavily considering the
damage that could be done if we do this wrong. As such, it's reasonable
and appropriate to expect that anyone who wants to suggest changes or
set new policies demonstrate a significantly higher level of competence
and trustworthyness than your average developer. The most obvious way to
demonstrate the appropriate level of both those attributes is to work on
n-m as an AM. Personally, I think the fact that you haven't done this, and
are evidently unwilling to do this, means your opinions aren't worth much.
> If you don't have
> anything worthwhile to add (and this message doesn't), don't bother.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought that communication and explanations were meant
to be good things.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature