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

Re: Bits from the ftpmasters

Thomas Hood wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 02:00:13 +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
martin f krafft wrote:
There are people
who want information from you, and those people have a right to this
information because it is *our* project, not yours.
You have absolutely no right to demand /anything/ of me, /at all/. What you get from me is precisely that which I choose to give; and when you're actively insulting me, that's absolutely nothing.
I'll try to address a question of principle here; I don't want this to
be interpreted as making a comment on any individual's conduct.
I think that mfk's request for information (quoted) was addressed to ajt
as an ftpmaster, not as a private person.

Well, that's nice and all, but there's absolutely no difference between me as a private person and as an ftpmaster -- my work on Debian is done *as* a private person, not as an employee, or under any other formal relationship. Further, the governing document of Debian *specifically* indicates that no one has *any* right to demand anything of me, except that I not actively work against the rest of the project.

With a position of responsibility come, erm, responsibilities.

So while I completely understand this sentiment, it's also completely and utterly inappropriate in the context of Debian.

If you want other people to do things for you in Debian, you need them to want to do it, you can't just go around trying to make life unpleasant for them if they don't.

I realise that's nothing like the norm in the rest of life, and that it's not easy and convenient, but it's the way things are. Think of it this way and extrapolate, perhaps: just because you can have a volunteer military, doesn't mean every volunteer project will have military style command and control.

Because Debian is a volunteer project it is always possible to shed
responsibility, but the way to do it is to resign one's position.

And again, I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong on this score.


Reply to: