Phil,
I'm inclined to agree with you that the pros and cons should be
summarized neatly rather than forcing people to dig into the mailing
list. However, I don't think it's necessary to recall the current ballot
as it stands for a simple matter such as this one. I just re-read this
entire thread, and the pro and con list is very short. Perhaps a wiki
page should be put together for this vote with the pro and cons of the
argument - I certainly don't see the harm in it. Since people have 6
whole days to vote, there is no reason to cancel the ballot, especially
since people can change their minds up until the end of the election.
Elections such as this are (at least from what I can tell from a year
plus of lurking) a relatively new procedure for this group, and there
are bound to be kinks in the process while it gets shaken out.
----
Now, with that out of the way, I'd like to make a more personal
statement. I don't have a horse in this particular race (the -dev versus
-devel issue), so please don't take this as me siding with the board in
some sort of witch-hunt against you.
You strike me as a very smart person who cares about the quality of the
project. However, as a new maintainer, seeing how you interact with
others on this list is incredibly off-putting and makes me less inclined
to contribute to the project.
Unfortunately, you have this habit of stalling discussions out with a
slow trickle of objections over what in the end are often minor issues.
I realize that you're trying to improve things, but it really comes off
in an extremely negative fashion. I realize that your posts don't exist
in a vacuum - there are others on this list that are combative and
sometimes downright rude. However, none of them post as much as you do.
Since you are a proponent of providing a summary for ballots, please
also consider providing a summary of your objections at the beginning of
a discussion so that others can see the entirety of your point of view
at once, and perhaps let the small stuff go. Otherwise, it just looks
like you are trying to kill the discussion with a thousand cuts.
On 2/24/2011 2:36 PM, Philip Brown wrote:
On 2/24/11, Peter FELECAN<[email protected]> wrote:
Philip Brown<[email protected]> writes:
ironically, I think you just proved my point, "people wont read the
thread". Because if you had (re?)read the whole thread rather than
just the first article, you would already know my viewpoint on
Dagobert's summary.
You misunderstood my remark: I referred to the message at the head of
*this* thread, the one that contains *this* message and which was cited
in Maciej's call for vote
Same thing applies, since they both have the same shortcomings.
Again, you proved my point that people dont fully read threads, when
given a reference to them.
In principle nothing, except that IMO this is a desultory diversion: we
discussed the subject during 10 days,[.....]. It's a
clear testbed case for the processes which govern our community. So,
lets try to do it without endless discussion about how.
Yes, I completely agree, this is a good testbed case for the process.
It is a testbed as to whether OpenCSW is going to continue forward as
a fair, democratic organization, or one where voices in opposition to
board members, are locked out of the voting process.
_I'm not looking for further discussion_. I'd like to see a vote; one
in which both sides get a fair voice on the ballot.
You said there is "nothing wrong" with my proposal in drawing up
ballot descriptions, so lets move forward with it, unless there are
any other objections?
There is no reason that this will significantly 'delay' anything,
since there is no need for further back-and-forth discussion. That is
another reason why I specified that each side gets exclusive control
over their side of the writeup, baring factual errors: To eliminate
delays in voting.
Unless Maciej is feeling particularly slow in writing up "his" side, I
see no reason that a vote could not be started in 24 hours from now. I
can certainly have my side written within that period of time.
Mr. Secretary, what say you?
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
.:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
.:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
