[Bug 34004] New Account Request

[Luc Verhaegen]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:17:50AM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 08:19:09AM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 07:56:04AM +0100, Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 03:02:58PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > >> Yes.  Tollef's opinion was that quitting was a copout and that I should
> > > >> instead go fix some sitewranglers bugs instead.
> > > >
> > > > Until the next time you're drunk, i'm sure.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > (If you do choose to make a case, take the time to make sure your
> > > arguments are well thought out before posting.  Remember, your arguments
> > > will have to sound convincing to a large number of people on this list,
> > > or you may as well not bother.)
> > 
> > All arguments were made, extensively, before.
> > 
> > Except maybe for one:
> > 
> > The claimed reason for reinstating daniels now is that apparently nobody 
> > else wants to take on an admin role at fd.o. I would like to know which 
> > known dependable community members were approached for such roles before 
> > this decision here was taken.
> 
> No-one has claimed that, except for you.
> 
> What Tollef said is that as I'd harmed (the perception of) fd.o, rather
> than just quitting and getting to walk away, I should instead help out
> with fd.o admin tasks as penance: his view was that after causing some
> damage, I should help improve things.
> 
> And as this bears out:
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/sitewranglers/2011-February/date.html#7255
> I've been doing just that.
> 
> If any of this is still unclear, please let me know and I can try to
> better explain it.

Was it considered, at any point in this process, to actually get more 
(actually trusted) people in to do fd.o administration?

I doubt it, and your answer seems to confirm it.

Luc Verhaegen.