On 15/06/18 10:49, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
To give Daniel credit, he did state that the text might be improved.
The text (the way it is worded), not the proposal. Exact wording again:
If you can see something wrong with the text of the motion, please help me improve it so it may be more likely to be accepted.
[snip]
And it's not the first time I get on fire for similar reasons. Repeating over and over, not listening, wasting everybody's time in endless loops, flooding discussion with irrelevant nitpicking and theoretical problems...
My blog explicitly asked people how the motion could be improved and I'm listening for the responses from the community.
It is sad that a lot of the mails I see, rather than addressing the issues, are one of the following:
- excuses why making this list is so hard that we can't even begin
- excuses why people can't have elections (other thread)
- attempts to twist my message into something else with negative emotive language like "hall of shame"
- personal attacks on me or how well I perform my role as a representative
I hope other people won't be deterred from speaking up about how this motion could be improved. I already received some suggestions privately and started drafting a new version of the motion.
Regards,
Daniel