Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If
> > the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility.
> After sleeping over this, I really think I've been unnecesarily harsh, and
> at the same time I failed to explain accurately what I meant here. So please
> bear with me, and let me rephrase it in a way that doesn't make it a less
> serious problem, but at least more sympathethic.
> I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of
> happened "by accident", but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
> so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily.
> When you accepted your position as Secretary, you knew this implied making
> tough decisions, and being responsible for them. You decided that the ballot
> was "good enough" to be voted on; you could have cancelled the vote, or you
> could have announced the results saying they're basically useless, but you
> didn't. Fair enough, it's your decision. And I don't see a problem with the
> ballot myself.
> However, when you were asked about the way you're interpreting the results,
> what you're essentially telling us is that the ballot was ambigous, and
> badly worded. You probably think this is my fault because I wrote a
> significant part of it, but that doesn't matter: you already decided the
> ballot is good enough, and (unless you want to retract that) you're bound
> to your own decision.
> So, what I think would be the honest approach to this problem, is for you to
> either announce that your interpretation is the way it is because the ballot
> was flawed, or change your interpretation to make it consistent with the
> I assume you won't be doing the latter, but if you choose the former instead of
> not doing anything, you have my support on that.
I don't usually participate in these discussions (so I can be
considered a member of the "silent majority"), but this thread has
been going on for long enough for me to want to voice my opinion.
Personally, I'm happy with Bdale's interpretation of the vote,
and I think that you need to make peace with the fact that vast
majority of developers is more pragmatic than you, when it comes to
DFSG compliance and interpretation. As such, I would be happy to see
us proceed with Lenny release based on the results of the vote. If
this is not acceptable for you, as a developer you are entitled to
affect this outcome using a number of different options available
(and I'm not talking about trying to convince anyone by repeating
the same thing over and over).
Jurij Smakov firstname.lastname@example.org
Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC