-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 14/01/13 21:39, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 07:04:06PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> I would call on the DPL to finally appoint an independent audit >> of the circumstances and report for once and for all whether the >> allegations are true, false or simply misunderstood. > > I thought my position on this matter was already clear from > https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/12/msg00068.html (in > particular the final part of it).
Your position is clear and I don't think anybody is questioning it here, but that particular email doesn't address the idea of an audit > To answer specifically your direct request: I will not appoint any > independent audit of this matter, because I don't consider we need > one. In fact, I also think it will be counterproductive. If there > were anything to be gained in running the process you suggest --- > and I'm entirely unconvinced there is any --- the potential damages > to our community would be far superior to what we could possibly > gain. This is where opinions may differ. I agree it may be disruptive, but that is the reason for getting it done quickly and independently, so everybody trusts the process. Also, the objective should be to improve the organisation and show that Debian is a champion of transparency and best practice. It is not a witch-hunt or an attack on individuals or on the venue. If anything, it would vindicate many people who have presumably done nothing wrong but been implicated by accident or by confusion (There has been speculation about who may be involved, and the wrong people have been implicated in at least two cases I'm aware of) It is also likely to vindicate those people who have today been accused of spreading "false" information. > If you are convinced something went wrong this time, please stop > looking for someone to blame, and start thinking at how to improve > processes so that next time things would work better. I had already made an attempt to do that before you even sent your email, and I would be glad to see it discussed on debconf-discuss, along with any alternative proposals: http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20130114.194453.5d1fe625.en.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQ9HZGAAoJEOm1uwJp1aqDAf8P/3CVklZNhhhl2jOKkWKmTEUw 13AwaMW6Ji+QWpQQWOfq3mQuSSwJPvYAWmNomWj3Ev5iOLIHk7Hddqoq459880gf ndVGalHacRb6WMqJfdhvL1nHN4hpHDjWiDEP7bhot4YUhc31HaVaXbba2cyMuWjD n6K5ZY71spJA5tyrwj23cKajxYFdyedzMuwh2awb7xSSaAAB0wEfyl9qeCnGb/Nh jK+gEe4NnywoJiHaQTWZf5XRQBCvX179Dv6PJzxqp9kEmpx8aVNJtK/wXWDxq5Pg mdxWN3pGpZVx1uESRqeATZ2tIrOr/MRCooenQiujRINzFqLVo1AlhWhdCv9EtaA3 ml+Z28teHQdjYTryAGXuLM26xeFDaC1143W86CEMLD2HMm0PGXYFZgEfOQKjw61F YG43QXfd03a4UQXS4cI/w055eJK6Zb2O9QOmHeQ+Grrsg196rvwpwa79UpdJNZWX 01XRhRfd7/QgzhAxZBo3FmD7egiyS7vT/2PL8uF/iSEfDL07iEniokkTxE+3enYm tY+G+RYAzhRNOthbn6JwsTimg/4/GWlzq27OYgFeFGex5o3QtiqEbQ4aLmfVNOVj yqygzL4UVGYWZ6gCghS1jar6X4EXcCan2hPSycsALm973nEKLfN8PcsnioRgol3N VeYRFzrF1kvjl4gjmeUA =MeOc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
