Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Discussing problems in public works very well if two people like > eachother. If they don't, however, you get two people cursing at > eachother. Now there are some people who really don't mind doing that in > public; but when things get messy, not being messy out in the open > actually makes a whole lot of sense.
Agreed, but would you agree that it is a core part of the role of the DPL/2IC, or indeed any mediator, to provide at least basic status and progress info to the project as a whole? What we've been seeing with this issue is that there has been complete silence for over three months. I think that a lot of the (heated) public discussion could have avoided if some progress/status info would have been provided at regular intervals. In fact, I think that a lot of the public discussion was as direct result of the total lack of such information. What are the thoughts of candidates on that? Also, it has been claimed "we cannot provide any information because discussions are in private" [1]. Do candidates agree to that, or do they think that a DPL should make clear to parties in advance that the project will be kept informed of status and progress (but of course not of specifics). Thanks, FJP [1] References: - http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/12/msg00078.html (+ following) - http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/03/msg00032.html (last para) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201004010647.54249.elen...@planet.nl
