On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Anita Kuno wrote:
At present, I am beginning to wonder to what degree you are being honest with us? Is you intention to know the candidates or to communicate your dissatisfaction with the current blog post situation?
You'll note that I didn't have anything to say about the blog situation until this week, after the emails with voting links were already out (I've already voted). That's on purpose. I didn't want to cloud my genuine desire to know the candidates with other issues nor distract this thread for its original purpose until everyone who wanted to had a chance to have their say. There's been another issue (about "downstream") that I've not responded to because of exactly this. I wouldn't have joined the commentary on the blogging issue if there hadn't already been a fair bit of talk about how fixing the feedback loop was one of the roads to improving. Also, critically, when Doug (who I can see is just trying to point out the current picture of reality so I'm not criticizing him, in fact I'd like to laud his efforts in pursuit of "write it down" which he has mentioned many times) pointed out the existing situation there were, effectively, bugs: * disconnected taxonomy in the presentation of the blogs * misconceptions about the frequency of postings If we can clear up those preconceptions then we can find the stable state from which improvements can be made. It is true that I have dissatisfaction about the visibility of the TC and I think a lot of the candidates have made it clear that they are concerned with that issue too. That's great!
It is detrimental to our overall electoral process if folks cloak personal points of disagreement in the guise of open discussion.
I would think that disagreements are in fact exactly the reason for having open discussion and such discussion is one of the best ways to know where people stand. I didn't, however, have that in mind when I responded to clarify things with Doug. Apparently my efforts to be lighthearted about that didn't quite play as I planned, and for that I apologize. As I was looking for blog postings I found so _few_ that I assumed any statements of there's 3 here and 4 over there[1] (covering the last greater than a year) were similarly lighthearted. I guess my expectations are way off?
I do continue to hope that candidate statements and responses are helpful to the electorate and that they cast their ballot without feeling that doing so is an indication about their feelings regarding a secondary issue.
I can't let this go without making yet another comment. I feel like I should just leave it alone because apparently I'm in deep water but: In what fashion is the effectiveness of TC communication a "secondary issue"? No, we're not going to solve it immediately and really we don't need to hash over the policies and procedures of the past. We might, however, like to make it better for the future. [1] This statement is not a quote and is not even supposed to be a representation of any truth, just a conveyance of the feeling of the moment, thank you very much. -- Chris Dent tw:@anticdent freenode:cdent https://tank.peermore.com/tanks/cdent __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
