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

[Editorial Comment] Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment"

Joerg, et. al. wrote:
> We consider... 

[Editorial comment]

"We" isn't qualified in either the Subject or the beginning of the
post.  You need to go to the end of the lengthy message to see that
the "Position Statement" is from a collection of Developers, rather
than Debian as a whole.  "Un-official Position Statement" might be
appropriate, though "A Developer Position Statement" might be better.
Regardless, "we" should be clarified and quantified at the beginning
of the post.

The side-affect of this is that some over-zealous reporter is going to
use the subject of the post to imply that all of Debian disapproves of
Dunc-Tanc.  This is obviously not true, as the results of the recent
GR supports.

Vague statements implying that "many developers" have left Debian
because of Dunc-Tank is unvalidated.  Footnotes to Message-Id's or
URI's of digitally signed messages would carry more weight to this
argument.  As it is, the author of this statement requires the reader
to do his or her own research to validate the statement.  Not

Chad Walstrom <chewie@wookimus.net>           http://www.wookimus.net/
           assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */

Reply to: