Re: Question for candidate Towns
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
Yes, but this doesn't *quite* answer my question.
The question is whether the bts people will make their own decision
about anything, or just do whatever the maintainer says.
Of course they'll look over whatever bug you claim is being abused. I
don't understand why you'd even imagine it'd be otherwise.
I think what I would prefer for cases like this is to remain somewhat
arms-length. Human nature is naturally likely to let one's judgment
be clouded be emotional investment in a particular case (as it clearly
was for the other side too).
Really? I think Enrico's take was that wishlist items should remain open
until they were no longer a wishlist item. That's a perfectly consistent
and reasonable viewpoint, and it's not one that I think he got confused
over.
Also, the above's getting pretty off-topic -- it's no longer about the
DPL stuff, and it's not even about anything happening currently, and
it's even getting kinda close to just being a random personal attack
about events from a year ago -- focussing as it does on whether I,
personally, get different standards to everyone else in the project
and am thus by implication some sort of immoral tyrant -- rather than
anything particularly technical (since after all you've explicitly
agreed the right outcome was reached).
No no, not some kind of immoral tyrant, geez no. I'm asking something
else, I think. I want a DPL who doesn't use the particular
prerogatives of *that* office to get a special pass on issues relating
to his own packages or his own commitments in other areas of the
project.
There aren't many prerogatives for the DPL though. You get to:
* lead discussion (9)
* propose GRs (5), vary discussion periods (8) and use a
casting vote (7)
* lend authority to people (2)
* appoint people to the tech ctte (6)
* appoint delegates (1)
* direct SPI to spend money (10)
* make decisions requiring urgent action (3) or that no one
else can make (4)
The first three don't have any direct effect, the second three are at
arm's length anyway, and the last one is fairly rare at best, and afaics
trying to make it at arm's length would defeat the entire purpose of
those provisions.
I'm not attacking at all; I'm not accusing you of any kind of
impropriety. But what is crucial is the avoidance of the *appearance*
of any impropriety.
Mmm. I'm not really sure that "You're not acting improperly, it just
*looks* like your acting improperly" is really that much better than
attack. And I'd much rather focus on making good decisions rather than
worrying too much about appearances -- or to put it another way, I think
we've got enough problems that definitely exist and have already
manifested themselves than to spend much time worrying about ones
that're as yet only imagined.
Now as I grant above, in this case there is hardly any irrevocable
action undertaken, so the reasons for hesitancy are different.
Does that explain both my worries, why I'm not *upset* at you about a
decision that was, as regards its merit, clearly right in my opinion,
and why I think this is about the DPL election and future directed
events, and not a rehash of the past?
Yes -- in an ideal world, you'd've pointed this out originally, rather
than risking the thread veering off track. :)
In other words, what I wish you had done would have been to ask
another person with BTS-oversight bits to say: "can you look at this
case and see if it warrants removing so-and-so from bts-control-bot
privs for a space?"
Mmm. In an ideal world. In practice, that would've forced someone else
on the BTS team to have to defend their actions against a fairly hostile
and unrestrained -devel, which isn't something I'm willing to ask of
people I consider friends. If you look through that thread you can see
Colin doing his best to avoid being too involved, for example. He's very
sensible.
It's not a *fault* that you didn't do this, but
it would have demonstrated a strong awareness of the issues here.
Would you agree that a procedure like this can be important and think
about it in the future?
I would really like the circumstances to be different so that I could
agree with that, and that's why I'm all for toning down the lists.
Cheers,
aj
Reply to: