This one time, at band camp, Joerg Jaspert said: > On 11184 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > For amusement's sake, correlating GR votes with respondents in this > > thread up until now: > > Now, what has the voting to do with the fact that you arent following > your own rules? You have to enlighten us about the "amusement" part in > there. AJ was attempting to dismiss people unhappy with his current disregard for the rules of the GR as people who just want to undermine the GR as a whole because they didn't want it in the first place. I suppose it's an attempt at a smear tactic, but it's not really clear what the smear would be: that you can read? That you could see the GR was never thought out to begin with? Just bear in mind that while you're complaining about the breach of policy, the GR only ever mentions the 'initial' policy for almost everything. Now that the GR has passed, it's not clear to me who has the ability to change the DM policy, so for all I know, AJ may be acting within the constraints of the GR by haphazardly changing the policy as he sees fit. It seems to me that under the letter of the GR, the only way back is to have you or elmo ask for the DMs to be removed from the keyring (although this policy may no longer count, as that was only the 'initial' policy), or ask sam to revoke the delegation. That part, at least, is actual policy, and not waffle about 'initial' policy. Well done project for passing such a well thought out GR on the basis of some disgruntlement and total lack of forethought. Let's do it again soon. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature