Re: Question for candidate Towns
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > 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.
Do you understand why judges aren't allowed to judge their own cases?
Hint: it is not because we don't trust judges.
> > 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. :)
I thought it was obvious; when it became clear that I was wrong about
that, I made it explicit.
> 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.
Shouldn't we expect people who make such decisions to defend their
actions? That doesn't require them to answer long tedious flame wars,
but it should involve something like a clearly worded explanation
saying this was what was done, this was why, such that people can look
at it and say, "yes, that is what the real thought process behind the
decision was." That's what judges are expected to do, for example.
Even if one disagrees with the decision, it is extremely helpful in
making it possible for people to predict future decisions.
Is it not a good thing to expect people to take responsibility for
their actions?
Thomas
Reply to: