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

Re: Summary? (Or: my vote is for sale!)

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:10:55 +0200, Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> said: 

> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
>> In that particular GR, the full text of the resolution was included
>> in every ballot and CFV. If you were mislead, that means you did
>> not even bother to read the mail you used to vote with -- sounds
>> like the person doing the misleading was just you being lazy.

> In that particular case, the "heading" was still "editorial
> changes",

        Because I believed that to be true, yes.

> and given the public cries that the results (not the voting results)
> gave, he was not alone in that misconception.

        The surprise came because people did not expect Sarge release
 to be delayed (I personally thought we would  just put in an apology
 for not quite meeting the SC in the release notes, myself).

> Therefore I don't think it's fair to call him lazy.  If you've

        I think anyone who did not read the ballot they used to vote
 on is indeed lazy, and did not o due diligence.

        But, if you think calling him lazy is unfair, but him implying
 I deceived him is fair, I amnot sure I can continue this

> missed that there was a discussion what removing or adding the word
> "software" in a sentence means (a sentence that talks, as you
> perceive, about Free Software, anyway), it's just normal that you
> don't understand the implications.

        The heading was what the GR was discussed under for 5 months,
 and was on the draft ballot. How come no one corrected me and told me
 my heading was incorrect _then_, rahter than bitching after the fact
 and implying I misled people by choosing that heading?

>> The consequences of those words may have come as a surprise to you
>> (and indeed, they did to me as well), but there was nothing that I
>> could have done about that.

> I don't think it's true.  It has been pointed out that some of the
> consequences have already been raised during the discussion, but
> were overheard.  And that's all Adrian and Marc were talking about.

        Chapter and verse, please. Which mailing list? Which post?
 Where was the issue of it ont being "editorial" raised that I
 overlooked when I set the title?

        Or you think implying that I discarded objections to the
 title without proof is fair, but me calling people who did not read
 the ballot is unfair?

 tired of being labeled as deceptive, misleading, or abusive of his postiion
The person who marries for money usually earns every penny of it.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: