Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Do we get to ask that their conclusions be made and explained and defended publicly? That's all I want. It happened nicely with respect to the Vancouver meeting. Lots of people went ballistic for what seem to me to be insane reasons. The Vancouver meeting is anexample of things working well.
It's also an example of why people don't bother informing the rest of Debian of anything. Do you really think anyone involved won't think twice about trying to do something difficult but worthwhile just because of the harassment they'd have to put up with? Or just try doing things and hoping no one will notice?
What is sad is that there are many decisions in the Project which are *not* made this way. I want a DPL that will promise to tell every team "you must explain and defend your decisions".
That's only a reasonable thing to do if you can also offer an assurance like "Your explanations will be listened to with respect, and you won't need to read thousand-message threads attacking your commitment to the values of the project over your decisions."
Given that assurance, I don't actually think I know of anyone in Debian who'd need to be told to explain their decisions.
But compare that with, eg, the casual implication of James being a perfect example of incompetence in "So this isn't really a James Troup question, it's a question of how much screw-up is necessary before a delegation should be yanked?" from the exchange with Andreas you posted earlier. Or Enrico's post on Project Scud from last week. Or however many other messages.
Sorry, I'm going to continue not responding to your other question for a little while yet; for reasons I expect'll become obvious.
Cheers, aj