Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Perhaps this is because Branden only pointed out the expiry > after the ballot was issued?
I believe that is incorrect. Furthermore, the Secretary considered Branden's point and ruled it incorrect before. I am unsure what is the more scary precedent or the correct interpretation of the Constitution in this matter. What bothers me is the backpedelling, and the fact that it occurs now. Had the Secretary decided Branden was correct before, this would not have been such a problem. > Your post was rude and completely pointless. Please try to realise I do not attack people's character and would like to ask you refrain from that yourself. > that most Debian developers have lives away from Debian. Most of > us have day jobs which have nothing to do with Debian. I would > not even be interested in a day job working on Debian if one > was offered to me. So try to have some perspective. Irrelevant. Everyone has personal lives away from Debian. So do I. Believe me, I understand. I have very little time to work on my own specific Debian projects, and know how pressing this can be. Non-Debian activities do not give people the right to ignore promises and responsibilities they have voluntarily entered into. Ignoring bugs for 800 days is not excusable by that. Similarly, ignoring resolutions for months, ignoring the Constitution, and causing confusion in the Project because of contradictory and ill-informed decisions is also not excusable by that reason. If someone finds themselves unable to fulfill their Debian duties, it is their responsibility to see to it inform people of the problem and see to it that a suitable replacement can be found. I should not have had to write the message I did. > If you want Darren to resign as secretary, then ask him to do > so directly rather than just being rude about it. We all know > that if you're rude enough to people in Debian they quit > eventually, but there are better ways. I complain about actions, not people. Whether Darren or someone else holds the office in the future is not relevant. What is relevant is how the holder discharges his duties. If he does so in a responsible, consistent, and timely manner, I will have no complaint regardless of the identity of the holder. -- John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.complete.org Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc. www.progenylinux.com #include <std_disclaimer.h> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
