IMO this is not the first time he has overstepped the mark; on another
memorable recent occasion, after an enormously acrimonious debate, 15%
of Debian's governing body thought he had offended badly enough that
he should be sacked over it[1], as many as endorsed his actual
decision[2].
I have zero clue on the history here, but I must say.. if only 15% of
the people were upset, I am unsure
of what the problem is. 15% is nothing in the grand scheme of things.
In particular, Anthony seems to be playing the role of Debian's SPI
advisor here - and what he is telling us inflates his own authority!
Does the Debian constitution have a limits on what his authority
represents? Perhaps the problem is ambiguity on the
part of Debian? I don't want to start a war or anything and I do
appreciate your bluntness but my experience shows
that people in general, will overstep their bounds (assuming good
people) when they don't know what those
boundaries are.
Further my experience is that if 15% of a particular group is unhappy,
usually the person made a good choice. 40%? Not so much.
Joshua D. Drake
Ian.
[1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_005
Of 330 DD's who cast ballots, 48 preferred Recall to the only
other option, Further Discussion.
[2] http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_006
Of 333 DD's who cast ballots, 49 preferred `wish success to Dunc
Tank' to `do not endorse or support his other projects'.
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
