Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > I'd like to split that into two questions: are we going to spend time > discussing their conclusions, and are we going to spend time flaming > over their conclusions? I certainly think we should discuss them, > especially if there are disagreements or details that need working > out; but there's a difference between that and the sort of "argh, > they're stealing my beloved project out from under me" stuff that > seems to appear with rather dull monotony.
Do we get to ask that their conclusions be made and explained and defended publicly? That's all I want. It happened nicely with respect to the Vancouver meeting. Lots of people went ballistic for what seem to me to be insane reasons. The Vancouver meeting is an example of things working well. People all affected by a situation talking, sorting out a possible solution, and then explaining and defending it publicly. And, I expect, adjusting the result after the public discussion has brought more light on it. What is sad is that there are many decisions in the Project which are *not* made this way. I want a DPL that will promise to tell every team "you must explain and defend your decisions". It's an excellent precendent, this Vancouver meeting, and I want to see more of it. I note, for example, that I have asked you a direct question in response to your promise that a simple non-attacking direct question will get a reply, and you have not yet replied. I don't know if that's because you were heading to Vancouver or not. I have sent two further questions to a team in Debian in the past week which have received no replies, and the question was simply, "can you let me know what your plans are in doing task XXX so that I can plan my work more effectively." I don't know if that team doesn't care if I'm able to plan my work or not. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
