Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:53:04AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I don't like Manoj's tone in this thread. It's harsh, accusatory, and
> somewhat rude. It seems like he is reacting defensively, as if he feels
> people are blaming him for the results they don't like. I don't think
> he was responsible for the results, just for running the vote.
> Comments like this don't help. This directly accuses him of mislabeling
> the proposal to support his own position. In otherwords, accuses Manoj
> of malfeance of office as Debian Secretary.
You're right. I apologise to Manoj. I better quit this thread while I'm
behind. There's nothing new to be said, just time to be wasted and anger
to be spent.
I suppose everyone who is unhappy with the outcome is looking for
someone to blame. I do still believe the CFV was misleading, but that
isn't the secretary's fault; he did call for proofreading after all, and
he was just using the subject of the original proposal.
Despite that the full text of the proposal was (of course) available and
anyone could have read it and formed their own conclusions.
You could even blame the people who did vote against the proposal for
not campaigning more strongly against it. Or aj for not saying anything
until after. But none of that helps and most of it's completely unfair.
The changes may turn out to be the right thing for the project. It's
pretty clear that the timing is terrible (in the opinion of many, if not
all), but we can solve that with yet another GR. Just what we need(!).
I do think the quorum requirement for changing the foundation documents
is too low. I think we should fix that. We should probably write some
code now and worry about it later though.
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>