SPI Elections: Corrections
"WTF? There seem to be some 30 or 40 voters who really dislike me, but didn't tell me that straight, preferring to be silent then vote me down. Are you cowards, or what?"
Not the most polite of questions(!),
but it's what I was wondering at the time.
I had some good replies in the comments
and a reply by Pingback that I didn't like,
but it turned out to be a very educational
reply in the end.
A comment from
Filipus Klutiero included:
"Sometimes, it's not really possible to explain a bad opinion of someone, because we forget the reasons for that opinion.
However, if you think that voting based on reputation is a bad idea, you probably can't understand these "cowards"."
I've mentioned before that
I don't seem to fit the debian developers stereotype,
so I guess it's not surprising if I don't
understand them sometimes.
If reputation is always going to be such a
one problem I need to overcome in debian
and SPI is that some other participants
do make crap up about me.
You can usually spot it by phrases
like "seems to think" (there are not that
many mind-readers out there),
but eventually, mud sticks.
How to overcome this?
Patiently post corrections, or is that futile?
Here are posts from
which I think are wrong on several points:-
First off, I haven't decided to call anyone cowards
- it was a question, albeit
a bit "nasty, british and short".
The underlying sentiment was continued
disappointment and puzzlement at
why voters behave like that in a
non-secret vote, not rage.
It was not really an "outburst," coming
a week after the results.
I'm not unhappy with the results - I've
congratulated the winners by several methods,
including the last post,
although I mentioned my mixed feelings.
Isn't that usual?
I think very few non-elected candidates
express unbridled joy about the experience.
After all, it's not an easy decision to stand,
but I did it for two main reasons: shortage
of other candidates I really liked,
at the time I chose
to stand (as I mentioned in my platform); and
for practical experience of how
I'm not rabid -
I've even written against the Rabid Right recently
- and I'm not rabidly anti-Google.
I had polite chats with various
people from Sun, Microsoft and
Google at debconf - I don't like
those companies, but I don't feel a need to
tell their workers that at every point.
I think reasons to like and dislike Sun
and Microsoft are old and well-known, but
a few years ago, I got so bored of explaining why
I don't agree that Google is God's Gift to
our communities that I posted
a FAQ-ish page
about it, which I update as I look at its new
developments. Let's politely disagree, until
Google fix the bugs which brought me to that
Andrew Pollock's point about debian-legal is vague and
maybe fair comment. It's not often
a fun or popular thing. But "precious ego"?
Ha! Yes, a guy who humiliates himself with
cheap stunts for environmental protests is
clearly very precious about his ego(!)
(Sorry if that's rude, but I find it hilarious.)
I don't mind people having different opinions,
but it would be nice if their opinions about
me were mostly based on reality, instead of
One fair point from Matt Palmer's post
and also, I discovered eventually, from
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho's site,
is that SPI's elections apparently are meant
as far as I can tell from the
Article Five and Article Seven of
the SPI by-laws.
I tend to value practice more than theory and
the current voting practice
is merely confidential, not secret.
I think that's part of why I didn't
understand the approach taken by some voters
- they were treating it as a secret ballot.
That's fine and now that I realise it's meant
to be secret,
I've suggested making it a secret ballot.
Syndicated 2007-08-08 09:15:00 from MJR slef-reflection Recent Changes