Re: Call for votes for "GR: : Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel"
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:59:38 +0100 (BST), MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:43:03 +0100 (BST), MJ Ray
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>> > Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <email@example.com> wrote:
>> >> [...] And how about your offering him to proofread the ballot?
>> >> Or just doing it, since he actually posted it in public for that
>> >> very purpose?
>> > I thought it was posted so that everyone could see the Secretary
>> > had shown it to the Proposer and Seconders.
>> Why on earth would I just "show" people stuff?
> Transparency. If not for that or comment, why is it posted?
Pointing out errors, of course. Since the ballot is
distributed on d-d-a, transparency resons seem nonsensical -- we
publish ballots far and wide. Commentary is useful, too, but this is
not a debate starter.
>> > The most common response to other comments recently is suggesting
>> > that the commenter is too thick to vote.
>> Commentary is one thing. Hysterical overreaction to the magnitude
>> of the error is another.
> Quite. Neither "These instructions are self-contradictory" nor
> "name the amendment on the ballot" are hysterical overreaction,
> whereas "Does anyone themselves have had problems figuring out what
> this was all about" and "Rubish. You have tow overlapping
> constraints" seem closer to hysterical: so keen to flame that
> spelling and grammar went out the window.
Jumping to conclusions as usual. The stutter in messages is
due to the hotel network randomly dropping packets, to the point
where typing is often painful. However, don't let trying to discover
facts get in your way.
Secondly, hectoring me does not solvce anything; I note that
no one actually has done _anything_ to reduce the discombobulation;
no one even mailed d-d-a, which is something I can't do without
access to my keys.
No, it is much more fun to castigate the secretary about
confusing voters rather than actually doing _anything_ to send a
notice to the selfsame voters.
> Unlike LUGs, I've seldom seen thanks for any debian things I do. In
> one way, that's OK - I do debian tasks for pragmatic reasons and
> I've only twice been offered small extra roles AFAICR - but it does
> suggest to me that something's rotten in the debian world. I think
> more small teams, more egalitarianism and more openness are the way
> forwards, but that seems to be opposite of the current direction of
> travel - for now.
Actually, it might have something to do with your ability to
be a team player.
> That works both ways. People should stop treating fellow volunteers
> as faceless workers and use the power of their role to encourage
> them, rather than seeming to spend equivalent effort on discouraging
Why on earth should I encourage behaviour that is merely
obstructive rather than helping role players in doing their job? I
have been mostly polite to people who pointed out my error, and
mailed me privately, but the "sky is falling" emails and trelling me
that they preferedd no mistakes being made in the fist place, thank
you mails get my ire.
innovate, v.: To annoy people.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C