Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
On 4/8/06, Micah Anderson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> By your argument, then the USA should give all its citizens access to
> >> our nuclear arsenal, launch codes, etc. because we trust them to have
> >> a say in deciding how the government is run.
> > Hmm, I see, you see yourself as government. That would explain the
> > dictatorial thinking as every governship tends to enslave the governed
> > people.
> This is a very surprising misunderstanding of what I wrote. I do not see
> myself as government, I do not see Debian as government.
>From you message I understood you looked at uploading rights as the
path to absolute war or dominion over foreigners or domestic
population (you compared WMD with upload rights)...
> Additionally, I
> do not see where you are seeing dictatorial thinking in what I wrote, in
then you let to be understood that people should not have a word in
the way the govern does its job ("we trust them to have a say in
deciding how the government is run"). For me that looks like a
dictatorship definition, if you don't allow the people say anything.
Sadly, this is how Debian is conducting votes currently (they do not
represent the users, but themselves), so from this point of view this
looks like you are in favor of keeping non mainatiners outside. It is
true that you didn't said something like that explicitly, but that's
how it resulted from the explained reasoning.
> fact, I am starting to wonder how you can see so clearly what I am
> thinking, perhaps your surveillance equipment has given you information
> about my thoughts that I have not yet thought, but I will?
Yes, of course, but unfortunately, now I will have to kill you :)
> What is particularly suprising is that you are attacking me viciously,
> when I believe that we have the same views on this subject, however you
That was not al all clear from your message... in fact the opposite was, otoh.
> have extrapolated meanings far beyond what I said through a process of
> misunderstanding what I actually wrote, to think I am actually against you.
Taking this mail into account, yes. I'm sorry for doing that. Maybe I
should cool down and not get too angry when I feel people are stubborn
and refuse progress (because I might be having a wrong idea)
> > You should think of yourself as a representative of the users instead
> > of their master.
> My message disagrees with the original poster's, which means that I
> think that more people should get a say in how we conduct the project's
> business, not less.
Yes, you wanted to say that people getting in should not be granted
upload rights, although voting rights are ok, while Manoj was stating
that if we trust people that much that we allow them to vote, upload
rights can be given with the confidence they will not abuse it.
In other words, you regard upload rights higher than vote (at first
sight, but in fact you are stating that upload rights should be given
on a need basis), while he is doing the inverse, stating that vote is
more important that upload.
So, AFAICT, you were not contradicting him, but stating another thing,
while it looked to me that you don't agree.
> > I wonder where did this go "Our priorities are our users and free
> > software". Probably, you forgot, but you are talking about Debian's
> > users here in general and constant contributors here.
> >>> Eiether we trust them, in which case we should induct them in
> >>> as full members, or we don't, and in that case they do not get to
> >>> vote.
> >> There are many people in my organization that I trust completely, who
> >> do not have root on our boxes. They dont have root because of a number
> >> of very obvious reasons that have nothing to do with trust in other
> >> areas.
> > Your point being? Please talk about Debian, not some organization of
> > yours. The way you conduct your buisness does not affect Debian, or at
> > least it shouldn't.
> Please dont tell me what I can and cannot talk about, I thought you were
> against dictatorial repression? If you want to talk about dictatorial,
> repression, then we can talk business, but I am not talking about
I was pointing out that external examples might not be the best idea.
I could give you an example of a bad organisation, but thta might not
be relevant in the debian context because other rules apply.
> My point is that someone who does work for debian does not need to have
> the ability to upload in order to be part of debian in some sort of
> 'officially' enfranchised manner. I think it is completely sane to have
> official debian people who do not have upload access.
Yes, that might be true, but a NU (new uploader) process should not
appear in the path to get those rights when needed. I suspect that
from a pragmatic POV, giving upload rights imediately is better, but I
might be wrong.
> > Somehow, your argument is twisted. Nobody said that in order to trust
> > someone, we should let him upload and see what will that person do,
> > but quite the oposite was said - once you trust, upload should be
> > fine, without abuses.
> The point is that people do not need upload access to be officially part
> of Debian. There is no reason for people to have upload access, unless
> they are doing uploads. Tell me a reason someone should have upload
> access if they are not doing uploads, and I will consider changing my mind.
I can't, because that was not what I was thinking you opposed to.
> The reason people give, time and again, for why we shouldn't bring
> anyone else into Debian even if they have a long history of doing good
> work for the organization that has nothing to do with uploading, is that
> it would be a bad idea to give those people upload access. So, we dont
> give them upload access, but we allow them into the organization. If at
> some point they need upload access, they will have an easier chance of
> obtaining it I would think.
See my previous concern... NU queue?
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein