Australian representative?

[Andreas Pour]

Karl-Heinz Zimmer wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Saturday 19 July 2003 09:09, Andreas Pour wrote:
> (...)
> > Don't let the negativity stop you, it's the problem of
> > problem of Michael and Karl-Heinz.  They'll get over it,
> (...)
> 
> That's a nice standpoint - reminds me to people who told us to shut up
> when we tried to prevent Don from discouraging people from contributing
> to KMail due to his behavior there...

Well when others are being discouraged from contributing is the one time you can
say "shut up" ;-).

> Telling others to shut up (or "go away" or "stop this") is easy.

Actually, no :-(.
 
> Asking if somebody /might/ be right with "the negatives" is more
> difficult of course.

I've worked with enough people and in enough situations that I simply do not see
the analogy.  Some of the best marketing people / salespeople go home and beat
their children, so to say - certainly they don't make the best workmates.  It's
a very different relationship.

I can also look at myself as an example.  I operate in very different modes if I
am involved in an internal debate and if I would deal with reporters.  E.g., I
may write "go away" in an internal debate to make a (rhetorical) point, but I
would not do that to a reporter.  In fact when dealing with PR you have very
short relationships with people - maybe one or two emails back and forth and
there is no reason to argue about anything; and if for some bizarre reason the
reporter wants to bait you, since you have nothing invested in the relationship
it is easy enough to just apologize for the misunderstanding and move on.
 
[ ... ]

> My problem is this: Don never regretted having behaved that ugly but
> _continued_ to insist that his way of acting was right - because he
> thought his opinion was right.
>
> So now: In case we will face a situation where he (as KDE representive)
> will have an opinion that is problematic you can safely assume that he
> will demonstrate his "I am the boss, I don't care about others!"
> attitute again and again...

Do you think he has acted maturely in this debate?  Is there a pattern outside
the (unique) KMail maintainership debate you can point to?

Are there less intrusive ways to communicate your concerns than full
opposition?  Perhaps constructive criticism, perhaps requesting assurances,
perhaps even having a monitor period, or something?
  
> So instead of having a little-dictator problem that is limited to KMail
> KDE will have a little-dictator problem in Australia+Oceania.

I think Don's humble resignation, even though (if I counted correctly) he had
majority support, strongly goes to disprove this theory . . . .

> IMO it is better to have _no_ representive than having Don.
> 
> Of course I know that some of you probably think I am wrong - but I also
> know that some of you think it is better to pretent to have 'peace' than
> to address serious problems.  I don't think so.

Actually I think KDE is a volunteer project, and as such if the project is to
survive we need to make efforts to recruit and keep people; and we also cannot
demand perfection.  I also think extrapolating behavior is extremely
unproductive (just spend another 20 years observing humanity and you will
probably see what I mean ;-) ).

Assuming for the moment you are completely correct about Don's behavior in the
KMail debates, I think if each of us were judged for the rest of our lives based
on our worst behavior nobody would be accepted for anything.  There is also of
course the randomness aspect - if Don had done the same thing with some people
not on this list then he would have been the rep.

I just do not think the KMail debate is indicative of how Don would act as a
rep, and if you disagree I don't see why he should not get at least a trial
period.
 
[ ... ]

Ciao,

Dre