Re: followup to my time-management question
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 02:27:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> way. If candidates felt that by ignoring my question they wouldn't
> need to explain their records in detail, they were incorrect.
Between Feb 6 and Mar 19, you sent 74 messages to debian-vote, around
half a megabyte of text. (For comparison, a number of popular books,
written for adults, weigh in on the shy side of 150Kb -- you've written
as much content here as is contained in some trilogies).
So, anyways, I tried grepping for your original question, and I was not
able to find it looking for substrings such as "past" or "project".
I did eventually find your post -- Date: 12 Mar 2005 04:27:47 -0800,
Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>. In other words, after
you had written three fourths of your material. And you did not indicate
that you were less than satisfied with the form of any candidate's answer
until it was no longer appropriate for them to respond to you.
Honestly, if the question was as important to you as your current
attitude seems to indicate, I'd think that you would have attempted to
express importance of the form of the answer you were expecting for this
question a bit better.
Basically, you've demanded that every candidate read every word of your
posts, and (up until just recently) you've treated this particular
issue as considerably less important than the other issues you were
One candidate got lucky with you, and good for that candidate. But please
don't pretend that you're being fair here. Unbiased? Maybe. But not
fair (nor reasonable).