On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 01:24:32PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > Actually, I believe you'll find that that wasn't even put forward as a > > metric for the experiment. > In your own words, the experiment was to allocate sufficient funds so > that Steve Langasek and Andreas Barth can dedicate a month each to > getting etch out on time (and Mon 4 Dec 06 was already given as the > release date). If you consider that to be the "success condition", it seems it was already a "success" -- that amount of funds was allocated, for exactly that purpose. > I think the experiment has even failed to provide useful information > it could have, partly due to the refusal to take or request any > recognisable measurements. Any future DPL funding initiative could be [...] Given this isn't a "DPL" funding initiative, I think you're way off base. > Further, it's cynical and unrealistic to demand that those unhappy > with the experiment to fulfil the DPL's wishlist at this busiest time > of year for festivals and so on. [...] You are, of course, free to do what you want, and you don't need to come up with any excuses for that. > I hope that > reporters are smart enough to recognise both that demand and the > refusal to report yet as the politicking of a DPL trying to hide the > negatives of his decisions. If this were politicking, what makes you think that I'm not suggesting the very thing I'm worried most about, safe in the knowledge that yourself and others will say "oh, if aj suggested it, it must be an evil, political idea and I shall do the exact opposite"? Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature