Re: expiry announcement
Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> writes:
> Perhaps this is because Branden only pointed out the expiry
> after the ballot was issued?
I believe that is incorrect. Furthermore, the Secretary considered
Branden's point and ruled it incorrect before.
I am unsure what is the more scary precedent or the correct
interpretation of the Constitution in this matter.
What bothers me is the backpedelling, and the fact that it occurs
now. Had the Secretary decided Branden was correct before, this would
not have been such a problem.
> Your post was rude and completely pointless. Please try to realise
I do not attack people's character and would like to ask you refrain
from that yourself.
> that most Debian developers have lives away from Debian. Most of
> us have day jobs which have nothing to do with Debian. I would
> not even be interested in a day job working on Debian if one
> was offered to me. So try to have some perspective.
Irrelevant. Everyone has personal lives away from Debian. So do I.
Believe me, I understand. I have very little time to work on my own
specific Debian projects, and know how pressing this can be.
Non-Debian activities do not give people the right to ignore promises
and responsibilities they have voluntarily entered into. Ignoring
bugs for 800 days is not excusable by that. Similarly, ignoring
resolutions for months, ignoring the Constitution, and causing
confusion in the Project because of contradictory and ill-informed
decisions is also not excusable by that reason.
If someone finds themselves unable to fulfill their Debian duties, it
is their responsibility to see to it inform people of the problem and
see to it that a suitable replacement can be found.
I should not have had to write the message I did.
> If you want Darren to resign as secretary, then ask him to do
> so directly rather than just being rude about it. We all know
> that if you're rude enough to people in Debian they quit
> eventually, but there are better ways.
I complain about actions, not people. Whether Darren or someone else
holds the office in the future is not relevant. What is relevant is
how the holder discharges his duties. If he does so in a responsible,
consistent, and timely manner, I will have no complaint regardless of
the identity of the holder.
--
John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> www.complete.org
Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc. www.progenylinux.com
#include <std_disclaimer.h> <jgoerzen@progenylinux.com>
Reply to: