Re: Summary? (Or: my vote is for sale!)
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> wrote:
> But, if you think calling him lazy is unfair, but him implying
> I deceived him is fair, I amnot sure I can continue this
I do not think he implied that *you* (the secretary) deceived him. He
wrote that he "believed in the text of the GR", but since the complete
text of the GR was not drafted by you (I think the short title was, with
an okay by the proposers?), I have no reason to believe he feels
deceived by *you*. What seems to be clear is that people have little
trust in being able to judge what a GR is about if they were not able to
follow the discussion.
And that's a problem we shouldn't ignore, or put aside by discussing
whether anybody was "deceived" years ago, or called someone deceiver, or
>> 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_,
I have no idea; I just got my account when the editorial changes GR was
put to vote, I think, and didn't take part since I didn't feel
> rahter than bitching after the fact
> and implying I misled people by choosing that heading?
I guess people did that back then, but I didn't hear such things now.
>>> 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?
Somebody asserted this week, probably on vote, that he'd already done
that during the discussion. I missed the details, and frankly I don't
care much. I think no one can deny that important facts and statements
of opinion that *are* made in these huge threads, dispersed throughout
the debian lists, will be missed by a significant proportion of DDs.
> 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?
The very fact that the title was used throughout the discussion period,
as you said, shows that it cannot be just you, or not at all you, who is
to be blamed.
> tired of being labeled as deceptive, misleading, or abusive of his postiion
Maybe that's more in your ear that in people's (my, Marc's) mouth?
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)