On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:23:36PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:58:06AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> Uhm. You knew that conclusions from that meeting would be likely to > >> contradict the answers from other DPL candidates, but you did nothing to > >> make them aware of this before they had those answers published to a > >> large audience?
> > I knew nothing about the candiates' answers, no. > > I did not use the knowledge to my own advantage, either. > How is using that knowledge to sidestep the question not using it to > your own advantage? We have a situation where several DPL candidates > have voiced support for the release team, only to have an announcement > three days later that flatly contradicts them. Would it not have been > better for Debian if you'd told the other candidates what decision had > been reached? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the timeline went something like: - Sunday evening, meeting adjourns - Monday noon-ish, first real draft of the meeting report posted - Tuesday morning, everyone who needs to review it gets on a plane - Tuesday evening, DPL candidates have their deadline for responding to LWN interview questions (all times UTC-0800) I hope you'll be somewhat forgiving of the people involved for the unfortunate case of timing at work here. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
