[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: NM queue and groups [Was: NEW queue and ftp-master approval]

On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 06:01:26PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:06:06AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:52:48AM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> > > [1] Which is a separate rant, and frankly, I think Debian needs to be
> > > clear about what we really mean by "We won't hide probles" in our Social
> > > Contract
> > 
> > It's a literal statement. We won't hide them. As always with the
> > social contract, do not attempt to assume the inverse is true. Just
> > because we won't hide them does not mean we're committed to going out
> > of our way to make them well-known and easy to understand. It is not a
> > commitment to some higher notion of transparency, but rather merely to
> > avoid *obstructing* transparency.
> > 
> > Complaining that you didn't know what the issues with the NM process
> > were is precisely equivalent to complaining that you didn't know about
> > some random bug which nobody had filed. Nobody was hiding anything,
> > it's just that nobody bothered to document the problem; they're very
> > different things.
> I notice that you conveniently trimmed the portion of my statement that
> went into detail about what I consider the core issue to be: what is meant
> by "problems".

It's irrelevant.

> One could argue that failing to acknowledge, or do anything about, an
> utter lack of transparency in our basic processes is, in fact, hiding
> problems, by tacit acceptance and omission rather than deliberate
> obfuscation.

One could, but it would be stupid pointless word games. You might as
well make similar complaints about tagging bugs as wontfix and closing
them. I already told you once that this is *not* what it means.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: