On 15/06/18 10:49, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
>> To give Daniel credit, he did state that the text might be improved. > > The text (the way it is worded), not the proposal. Exact wording again: > > If you can see something wrong with the text of the motion, please > help me improve it so it may be more likely to be accepted. > [snip] > > And it's not the first time I get on fire for similar reasons. > Repeating over and over, not listening, wasting everybody's time in > endless loops, flooding discussion with irrelevant nitpicking and > theoretical problems... > My blog explicitly asked people how the motion could be improved and I'm listening for the responses from the community. It is sad that a lot of the mails I see, rather than addressing the issues, are one of the following: - excuses why making this list is so hard that we can't even begin - excuses why people can't have elections (other thread) - attempts to twist my message into something else with negative emotive language like "hall of shame" - personal attacks on me or how well I perform my role as a representative I hope other people won't be deterred from speaking up about how this motion could be improved. I already received some suggestions privately and started drafting a new version of the motion. Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
