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

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:

>         Since it has been decreed that the secretary has no discretion
>  in putting up properly proposed and seconded text, this request is
>  now moot.

>         We do have an issue now with people seconding extraneous text,
>  including signatures and extra material in the email; since if people
>  want a secretary with no powers to decide what is and is not
>  resolution text, then if person A seconds a proposal with
>  accompanying matter (someone just seconded Don Armstrongs proposal,
>  and did not elide the vote.d.o fragment); and person B carefully
>  edits and seconds a subset of the original email, then they are not
>  seconding the same sequence of bytes.

>         Previously, I would have exercised judgement -- but I have
>  been informed  a Debian delegate that that was gross and egregious
>  abuse of my power as a secretary.

I appreciate the frustration that you're expressing, and I'd like to see
discussions be less confrontational.  I don't really know how best to help
with the underlying problem here.

I thought you were doing fine in using your discretion.  I may not have
agreed in every particular, but it seemed like it was something that could
be talked through and discussed and a compromise could be arrived at.  I
*don't* want to see a completely mechanical comparison of bytes for
exactly the reason that you explain.

So, how do we get back to a place where the secretary feels comfortable
using his discretion and when that isn't the intention of the proposer, we
can talk through it without people feeling insulted?  Right now, it feels
like all of us who thought that discretion was appropriate and were
willing to speak up if we had suggestions on a different way of handling
things are suffering due to the way that disagreement was expressed in a
few places.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: