Re: Question for candidate Towns
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > 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.
But see, I wasn't trying to be snarky at all. More to the point, I
think we need a DPL who is willing to talk to snarky people. Be
liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you require.
I've been trying my damnedest to bend over backwards to *not* be
snarky in this entire thread, and my experience has been that if there
is any conceivable way you could interpret my words as snarky, you
seem to me to leap at that opportunity. I would prefer you give me
the benefit of the doubt: figure out if there is a *non-snarky*
interpretation *first*; and if you can't figure one out, then even
then don't assume it's snarky, but ask for clarification.
We do not allow judges to judge their own cases *not* because of
the great importance of the cases (for we have the same rule for all
cases, whether trivial or of great importance), and not because we
don't trust the judge. We have it because it is not only important
for justice to be done; justice must also be seen to be done.
Your style, it seems to me--and *please* correct me where I
misunderstand, don't just assume I'm wilfully trying to malign
you--seems to be to demand that we must take it on faith that you are
doing the right thing, and that you are not willing to open up your
decisions to any kind of external examination. Even if you always
make the right decisions unfailingly, I also want it to be transparent
*that* they are the right decisions.
> > 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?
Instead of guessing at an emotional subtext for my words, an innuendo
or whatever, can you please clarify where I'm wrong? You *seemed* to
be suggesting to me that you thought it was not necessary to expect
people in leadership roles to justify their actions; that we should
simply rely on them being done well, and if we are uncertain or don't
understand, we should shut up. If I've gotten it wrong, then
please--I beg you--correct me. If you are happy to provide
justification for your actions upon request, then please tell me what
a proper request looks like. Don't just say "it must be non-snarky",
tell me what words I should use, and when. Help me out. I want to
learn, but you'll have to teach me.
Thomas
Reply to: