Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> 
> You're the Secretary.  You're supposed to give answers, not speculation.  If
> the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility.

Bdale,

After sleeping over this, I really think I've been unnecesarily harsh, and
at the same time I failed to explain accurately what I meant here.  So please
bear with me, and let me rephrase it in a way that doesn't make it a less
serious problem, but at least more sympathethic.

I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary;  it sort of
happened "by accident", but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily.

When you accepted your position as Secretary, you knew this implied making
tough decisions, and being responsible for them.  You decided that the ballot
was "good enough" to be voted on;  you could have cancelled the vote, or you
could have announced the results saying they're basically useless, but you
didn't.  Fair enough, it's your decision. And I don't see a problem with the
ballot myself.

However, when you were asked about the way you're interpreting the results,
what you're essentially telling us is that the ballot was ambigous, and
badly worded.  You probably think this is my fault because I wrote a
significant part of it, but that doesn't matter:  you already decided the
ballot is good enough, and (unless you want to retract that) you're bound
to your own decision.

So, what I think would be the honest approach to this problem, is for you to
either announce that your interpretation is the way it is because the ballot
was flawed, or change your interpretation to make it consistent with the
ballot.

I assume you won't be doing the latter, but if you choose the former instead of
not doing anything, you have my support on that.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."