[fedora-india] Ambassadors in India

[steve]

Let's just keep this on the list, shall we ?

On 05/11/2010 12:24 PM, Ashwin wrote:
> On 05/11/2010 11:05 AM, steve wrote:
>> [...snip...]
>>  It is not about ^accountability^ it is about common _courtesy_. Think
>>  about it this way -- You ^volunteer^ to accompany someone for a movie.
>>  It is time for the movie to start and you aren't at the theater yet. The
>>  person tries to call you, but you don't respond. You are unreachable by
>>  any method.
>
> Good you said it. So you want to enforce *courtesy* ? Correct ?
>
No. Courtesy flows .../both ways/. If you cannot be bothered to be courteous to 
let the project know that you are active, the project cannot extend the courtesy 
of calling you a contributor anymore, makes sense ?

>>
>>  Will the person be wrong in assuming that you cannot make it and decide
>>  what to with the tickets based on that assumption ?
>>
>
> Sure, you can decide what to do with tickets. But would you assume your
> friend is *dead* and delete his number from your mobile phone records ?
>
> We do not declare friends to be dead and remove them from records just
> because we are not in touch. Do we ? So what do we do ? what do you do ?
>

Ugh ! you don't really that the capacity to understand metaphors, do you ?

For all intents and purposes of the ^project^ (watching the movie) you are in 
absentia, so you are no longer relevant to the decision making process of what 
happens to your privilege towards the project (ie: your movie ticket).

Don't take a simple metaphor and murder it.

Anyways, seems like you either don't have the comprehension ability to 
understand what is being said, or are just too stuck up to admit you were wrong. 
This is my last response on this thread.

cheers,
- steve
-- 
random spiel: http://lonetwin.net/
what i'm stumbling into: http://lonetwin.stumbleupon.com/