Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
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 thanattack.Do you understand why judges aren't allowed to judge their own cases? Hint: it is not because we don't trust judges.
See, that was unnecessarily snarky.And yes, it _is_ because we don't trust judges -- and justifiably so, they are deciding life and death cases in politically fraught environments, and there's plenty of history of corruption of judges.
The only one of those tags that's remotely applicable to Debian is the "politically fraught environment", and IMO, even that shouldn't be so.
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 toask 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,
Uh, that's where you're wrong. It does require dealing with long tedious flamewars. I think it shouldn't, and I hope to be able to address that, but for the past few years it certainly has.
Is it not a good thing to expect people to take responsibility for their actions?
And we're back to snarky. Seriously, how attractive do you think it is to try to communicate on a mailing list when you keep having to put up with innuendo about how you have some policy where certain people such as yourself shouldn't have to take responsibility for their actions?
Cheers, aj