I find it very interesting you took my observations as 'accusations'. After all, I feel my observations are easily justifiable.
Observations might be justifiable but sometimes the way and methods chosen are questionable.
In your platform, the "Why you shoud vote for me.." section ONLY states the No-Confidence Vote. There is no mention of the Foundation in that section at all.
This section is maybe incomplete, that is fair enough - therefore I now edited that part. I am now stating in it that you should also vote for me because of my goals. Somehow I thought that would only be logical... That mentioned "My Goals" section btw. puts up numerous other reasons why you should vote for me. Maybe you should also have a look at the goals of a candidate to make a reasonable decision whom you'd vote for.
The "Current Issues" section dedicates a large paragraph to the No- Confidence Vote. That paragraph calls the work of your potential teammates 'unncessary' and 'disgraceful'.
Please give me a cite where you read that out or rather read that into. That's exactly one of those points you'd call "justifiable observations" but in fact are nothing more but untrue and unprovable / unproven accusations. But, only to stress it out just in case my words made the impression I had only criticism for the current board and potential teammates to others as well: That's definitely not the case! There sure are things regarding their work that I have to criticise and that is what I have to focus on because those are the points that I see need improvement. That on the other hand does not implicate that they are only delivering "unnecessary or disgraceful" work. Words by the way you would not be able to find anywhere in my mails for good reasons.
In the same section you only provide a single sentance to the foundation. There are no details as how you'd support the topic or what you'd expect the foundation to look like.
And of your goals 3 of them are clearly related to your no-confidence motion, 1 is related to the foundation, and 1 is somewhat more generic.
Considering the above, I think it's very easy for any reasnoble reader to feel that your primary motivation for running is to re-hash the no- confidence vote and there is a significant lack of substance beyond that.
If the perception I got from that is incorrect, fine, then my first reply was a clear opportunity to clear up that misperception on my part.
I find it exceptionally telling that, once realising that we had a difference in opinion regarding the content of your platform, that the discussion has evolved the way it has.
A discussion consists of two parties. And regarding the point that I can't see much more than accusations from your side, it is really hard to still call it a real discussion where I'd be able not to be put into bad light by the way you formulate your questions and the way you do your "observations". Maybe we got each other on the wrong foot. I don't see that continuing this discussion on the current way it is, therefore I am open to anyone asking me further questions but for this thread I will leave it at that. @Richard: A proposal: please let's get in personal touch to maybe clear out at least some of our misunderstandings and difficulties we are seeming to have with this style of communication. Maybe another and more personal communication channel like a call is able to improve our mutual understanding.
I would have hoped a Board member would have taken the opportunity to look inward, and ask themselves how a voting Member like myself got such an impression.
I am a thoughtful and considerate person, at least thinking twice or rather more than twice about what I write and how I write it, always thinking about how the words might be received and understood by the reader. I am sorry if that failed you.
You have instead taken the route you have, even going so far to use rhetorical deflections to suggest that my words are more telling about my motives than yours.
I think it's important for you to realise, my motives don't matter.
I'm not the one running for the Board, I'm just a voter like several hundred others who's support you will need.
Who's support I need and highly appreciate indeed.
You are the one running for the Board, and I suspect this thread has done a good job of showing what sort of Board member you could be.
This again feels like having some negative connotation, but I agree on that point nonetheless - this thread shows quiet well that I stand up for my opinions and advocate what I think is best for all of us and stay respectful of other persons and their opinions and keep listening and answering. Therfore: my offer still holds, reach out to me for a personal call if you like, so we could avoid the difficulties we are having here as it seems. I promise you'll find it's easy to get on well with me. If you don't believe me, ask Gerald. :-) Additionally you will definitely find I am only a human being, making mistakes but you'll see, too, I am always happy to learn and improve myself through those mistakes and the honest criticism of those from whom I might be able to learn one thing or another.
I'd like to thank you for all the responses in this thread. I have found it very insightful and helpful in deciding where my vote will go.
Regards,
Kind regards Pierre -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org