Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:11:15PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:50:15 -0700, Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> said:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:49:36AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> >> I have already cited it in this discussion. 2.1:1:
> >>
> >> "Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do
> >> work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task which
> >> has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do it.
> >> However, they must not actively work against these rules and
> >> decisions properly made under them."
> >>
> >> I direct your attention to the first sentence of that quote.
>
> > Perhaps that section of the Constitution should be modified, then.
>
> Heh. The foundation document does not meet your requirements
> for what you think other people can be made to do, so it should be
> changed. May, if I could get my wish about things like that, the
> twit factor on the mailing lists would be far reduced.
If the foundation document is being construed to support aggressive
non-communication, then it needs to be clarified, because that almost
certainly can not be what was intended.
Do you think the Red Cross would allow you to volunteer there if you shirked
your duties and laid around in a hammock all day?
> You have any plans on how y'all are gonna enforce it?
I don't need to enforce anything, the DPL and his delegates do. They already
have this power. The fact that this GR has even been propsed shows that they
haven't been doing their jobs either.
> > If they simply do not reply to repeated requests, then they are,
> > IMHO, actively (passive-aggressively) working against the rules.
> > They're also breaking the social contract which states that we won't
> > hide problems.
>
> They are not hiding problems. The inaction is there for all
> to see. They are not going neener neener neener on a sekrit leet
> mailing list.
Then they shouldn't be surprised when they're chastised in public.
There is no real defense for this kind of inaction. That's why the "I'm a
volunteer, therefore I don't have to do anything" defense is so heavily used.
> > Also, even though passive-aggression may not be specifically
> > prohibited by the Debian constitution, it certainly is not
> > encouraged by the constitution and should not be generally endorsed
> > as the right way of doing things. People who act in such a manner
> > should be chastised for doing so, not defended.
>
> Bullshit. No manner of public opinion is likely to make me do
> what I do not think is right. Attempts at chastisement shall be met
> with flames that make your eyebrows curl.
Well, then all I can say is that hopefully some DD's with more open minds
have read my post and will start to expect more transparency and
communication from their leaders. If nobody esle cares, then what I've said
doesn't matter; it's already too late.
--Adam
Reply to: