On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 01:13:28PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > It seemed the same sort of question to me too.
> there was no "damned if you do, damned if you don't" trap in the
> question. i am not trying to "trap" branden, i am trying to find out
> what his intentions are and what, if any, action he will take on the
> issue.
That's not true though. If he answers "yes", then you can claim that
he'll ignore what the developers want and just do it; if he answers "no",
and goes ahead with ensuring that a vote does come about, then you can
claim that he lied while he was running for DPL and that he's just an
out right hypocrite, or something similar. Or, if not you, someone else
can and probably will.
> > It's not obvious what the right or honest answer is, and it doesn't
> > really apply to the situation.
> the honest or direct answer is to state what his intentions are. there
> is no "right" answer, as that's a matter of preference.
Assume you had the same intentions I described above: that you'd try as
hard as possible to get a vote on the issue done, and then try as hard
as you could to make sure the result of that vote was effected. How
would you answer your question?
Cheers,
aj, who doesn't see how "yes" or "no" is particularly better than
an entire sentence or two explaining what you're going to do anyway
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgp5c4G9Q8Lrv.pgp
Description: PGP signature