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

Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader

On 9/26/06, Denis Barbier <barbier@linuxfr.org> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:02:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> I don't understand how this proposal answers the question.
> One answer implied by your proposal:  "Dunc-tank is
> grounds for removing Debian's leader, that means it
> is a debian project."


Again, I'm somewhat unsure what you mean.  This time, I
am going to guess you mean "No, that implication is not
the meaning that [Denis] intended".

Do you remember the discussions about the Debian Core
Consortium last year?
Debian developers were concerned about trademark issues, and
this consortium has been renamed into DCC Alliance.  This
does not mean that Debian was part of the DCC Alliance.

This does not seem comparable.  "Talking about concerns" is
not the same thing as "passing a GR to restructure the project
in response to those concerns":

If we do pass a GR, the results would say something about
our thoughts on the underlying issue, its relevance to the
project, and our thoughts on related issues.

> If this was the only answer implied by your proposal, I
> might agree that your proposal makes confusion vanish.
> But, it's one of many contradictory implied answers.

Ok, let me clarify.
Is dunc-tank perceived as an independant project when it is
launched by the Debian Project Leader, and this project asks
people to give money to help release Etch in time?
In my opinion no, people believe that they give money to a
Debian project whereas dunc-tank is not.

If this is your belief, it seems to me that you are reinforcing
the particular implication I suggested originally.  Since my
point is that your proposal increases confusion, I'll take this
opportunity to point out another implication of your proposal:

"This proposal implies that the beliefs of uninformed outsiders
take precedence over decisions made by anyone within

Now, I'm not saying that everyone is going to take this
meaning from your proposal.  I am, however, saying that
the number of people who believe this implication will be
at least as large as the number of "people believe that they
give money to a Debian project whereas dunc-tank is not."

That said, if there is fraud involved -- if people are taking
money under false pretenses -- that is a criminal matter,
and should be treated as such.  We should not be waiting
on a GR, if that were really the case.

This is why I told that this recall procedure will make this
confusion vanish.

This recall procedure might make your own confusion vanish.

It increases my confusion.


Reply to: