Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:50:13PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > Correct, a resolution that says "Foo must perform action A, instead of
> > not performing action A" is explicitly a no-op under the constitution,
> > and is also obviously silly.
> Correct. The appropriate GR is "Foo shall be removed for failure to perform
> the duties of $position", with the rationale citing "failure to perform
> action A, a duty of $position".
> Please note that I'm not trying to be insulting here; it is simply my
> personal experience that the ftpmasters as a whole have never, in any
> situation I have been a party to, been particularly communicative, and
> that Mr. Troup in particular, in *multiple* of his roles, appears to be
> particularly prone to failing to communicate in what *I* consider to be
> a timely or appropriate fashion for the execution of the duties of those
I fully agree with you here. Made the same experiences and know of many
others with the same experiences. Sadly, mostly the same people are
complaining in public about that, giving the wrong picture that only a very
small numbers of people have those described problems, although many others
are acknowledging these problems privately (because they fear to get flamed
Even a fresh DD, who has been a NM last year, stated that he won't comment
publically against Mr. Troup, because he feared that his Approval would be
delayed then. Funny enough he obviously changed his mind after he became a
DD. Well, in Germany there is a word for those kind of people: "Wendehals"