Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
It is a mistaken belief. That page is just poorly worded in this
regard, if it makes you believe otherwise.
Poorly worded or not it is a status page. If the status does not mean
what it reads then it must be reworded.
Well, yeah, that's exactly what Antti-Juhani is saying.
No, he is saying that even though the page is poorly worded the
meaning should be clear enough.
That is obviously not the case.
What that's trying to say is, applying for developership should not
be the first thing to do in Debian; there are a lot of things you
can do before you apply. Nowadays, showing prior work is required
for an applicant to get anywhere in the NM process.
I don't know what it is _trying_ to say.
Apparently not, but Antti-Juhani (presumably) does.
Which is not relevant since he is not in a position to give official
interpretations of a poorly worded status page.
I know what it says
And that is relevant, why?
If people say "your interpretation is not what it's supposed to say;
perhaps it's improperly worded, here's what we mean", you shouldn't go
around claiming that what they mean is irrelevant because the text
otherwise. This is not law school ;-)
A status page is a status page and I am not aware Antti-Juhani is in
any special position that allows him/her to give an official
interpretation of status page. Or to comment on other people's
inability to see the meaning he/she puts there.
Reading a status page is definitely closer to what you do in law
school that what you do in CS school.
If people claim that the text is improperly worded, presumably they
agree that it will have to be changed. You might want to suggest
wording, but don't start preaching to the choir -- that doesn't
fix the problem.
I don't preach the choir. I've made concrete propositions in earlier
mails and Annti-Juhani only suggested that the text was clear enough
and one only had to be initiated to its secret meaning to be
satisfied with its wording.
What about you don't waste your own time replying to a mail you deem
irrelevant and make concrete propositions yourself since you seem to
agree the page is poorly worded yourself and you advise me to do so ?