On Tue, 2020-08-11 at 18:31 +0200, Pierre Böckmann wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 August 2020 16:09:01 CEST you wrote:
Hi Pierre, Thanks for your responses, I have some followup questions.
On Tue, 2020-08-11 at 15:47 +0200, Pierre Böckmann wrote:
I'm dissapointed to find that your platform seems to be entirely based on effectively re-hashing the failed no-confidence vote. My views on that matter are not only well documented, but the vote failed, so it seems a peculiar decision to run primarily on the same topic.
I am disappointed, too, that you pick a single point and pretend this would be all I base my campaign on - though that is absolutely untrue.
Skipping over responding to this train of thought in the name of compromise, collaboration, and wishing to avoid being baited into conflict.
First accusing me of primarily running on the topic of a failed vote, now accusing me of trying to bait you into conflict... Nothing of that's true or going to happen, I was only answering your mail without any bad intention and without any ulterior motives. Reading those into my response is not OK but at the same time it's ultimately telling more about your motives than mine. Let's leave it at that.
I find it very interesting you took my observations as 'accusations'. After all, I feel my observations are easily justifiable. 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. 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'. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, -- Richard Brown Linux Distribution Engineer - Future Technology Team Phone +4991174053-361 SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org