[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Vote of a former candidate

Le Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 04:06:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson écrivait:
> > While Branden improved much his behavior during the last year,
> Just FYI, it's difficult to read this as anything but a backhanded
> compliment, which runs counter to your thesis of "not showing any
> animosity".

Heh, I'm not perfect. :-) It's still a compliment. I really think
you're doing better each year concerning the respect of other

> This is the more substantive point.  However, you seem to be completely
> ignoring the fact that I've proposed doing must more than just "giving
> official titles to people".

My short explanation was short ... I just wanted to motivate quickly my
vote. It's not a complete analysis. I can discuss it a bit more if you
really want :

>   * "The DPL must also follow up with the delegates, and ensure that
>     they understand their responsibilities; not just so that they know
>     what is required of them, but so that they know what is not required
>     of them."

This is just a misconception. Most of the delegates already in place
know better than you (or any DPL) what they have to do and what are
their responsibilities... even when they fail in some aspects.

If you plan to create new delegations, then it may make some sense.

>   * "As a first approximation, I believe there should be a webpage on
>     the Debian site specifically dedicated to DPL delegates: it should
>     enumerate them, describe each one's responsibilities, state the date
>     each one's term began, 

I think all this is useless. 
http://www.debian.org/intro/organization is enough

>     and provide a link to each delegate (or team's) webpage where they
>     can post news and status information, where applicable. 

Writing news takes time that they can better spend ... I'd be happy with
a simple summary mail on d-d-a when they have something interesting to
say and/or when then need help.

>     Delegates should be directly involved in establishing their own
>     standards and responsibilities; this is not only more fair to

This is already so... delegates are volunteers who are doing what they
want, they follow their own standards.

>     volunteers, but this should also serve to get the DPL and the
>     delegate off to a good start in having open channels of
>     communication.

Which means that someone is going to have to write the documentation
describing the task of each delegate ... more time wasted by the
delegates themselves (and I ignore the fact that writing documentation
is not fun ...).

Another interesting solution could be that the delegates are interviewed
by other volunteers who'd write the documentation afterwards. This would
be cool, but until you have a group of clueful volunteers able to do
that I consider it as an utopy. :-)

> To conclude, it appears that you issued your critique of my platform
> without having even read it, or without having read it very carefully.

That's wrong. I have read everyone's platform carefully (including Moshe's

> Your statements could be very misleading to other voters, and this is
> why I encourage everyone to do his or her own research before casting a
> ballot; consciously or not, other people's characterizations of a
> candidate or his views can be quite distorted.

You may have noted that I gave my recommendation for voters who don't
have a strong opinion which implicitely means that the other should
follow their own perception of the candidates.

Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com

Reply to: