Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:16:34PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I didn't want to make this personal, but [...]

I think the phrase you're looking for is "so I won't".

> Anthony Towns writes:
> > And, uh, the "authoritative decisionmaker" for Debian is the duly elected
> > leader of the Debian project.
> Anthony overreaches himself here.

"Authoritative decisionmaker" is an SPI-specific term, that IMO, doesn't
reflect the role at all well, whether in relation to Debian, or other
SPI related projects. That's why I referred to it in scare quotes above,
and don't use it regarding the role by preference.

> 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].

> [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'.

Those are different sets of numbers. In the first vote, 277 people
voted FD, while 48 people voted for the recall, a difference of 229
votes. In the second vote, 177 people preferred "wish success", to "do
not endorse/support", while 128 preferred the opposite, a difference of
49 votes.

Cheers,
aj