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

Re: Question about Anthony Towns rebutting Branden Robinson

On Thursday 17 March 2005 2:07 pm, MJ Ray wrote:
> Quite so. The president is not the officer charged with handling monies,
> but a board-level overseer. http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/spi-bylaws

Agreed. It all comes down to team attitude. The problem (and this can be 
typical) is that obsessing over the details of protocol replaces action. 
Protocol should always be enabling results. That is why it exists. If it does 
the opposite then it isn't doing its job and needs to be replaced.

> My point was that Branden wasn't demoted. Maybe he should have
> been, in your opinion, but you didn't try to demote him. He
> quit and was reappointed. Maybe SPI (led by you) didn't get a
> smooth handover, but was this because SPI was asleep or because
> Branden obstructed? It's hard to be sure, which seems bad.

I'm tired of pitching my version of the story. I would like as much material 
to be made publicly available so that people can make their own decisions. 
Believe you me, there is plenty of stuff on spi-board that doesn't reflect 
well on me. That's not my main worry though.

> My reply to your point is that the situation is improving and
> your sniping isn't the best way to help.

I've tried other avenues. Sniping is one of the few options where I'm not 
going to "exceeded my powers".

> Yes, it would be good to have more replies on
> http://debian.edv-bus.at/vote-2005/spi-management.html


> Indeed, but DPL's powers are limited and DPL is overseen like
> SPI's officers.  In one way, it would be good for debian if
> Branden gets elected and you watched him really closely!

The DPL appears to have absolutely unchecked powers over Debian financial 
concerns. Martin has approved and drafted thousands of dollars for DebConf 
expenses without any official process. The constitution doesn't seem to 
impose any limitations.

> You're never going to know that, in my opinion. You need an
> absolutely reliable bug-free automaton, it can happen again if
> enough people make mistakes. Bug-free is unprovable though, so
> your campaign looks hopeless unless you're going to actually
> help fix the problems as well as the symptom you addressed.

I agree but let's not get caught up in semantics. There is a difference 
between "likely" and "stratospherically improbable". If we can get single 
transaction errors down to "damn unlikely" then chances of repeating the last 
debacle will be vanishingly small.

Ean Schuessler, CTO
214-720-0700 x 315
Brainfood, Inc.

Reply to: