[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New-Maintainer



On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 03:20:01AM -0600, Jonathan Hall wrote:

Hi Jonathan,

>   I see no point in complaining at this point.  As I understand it, the new
> mantainer freeze was done so the current mantainers could focus on getting
> the software to work right--this is a good and worthwhile goal, I'd say. 
> Most of the world seems to think Debian is far enough behind as it is.  I
> don't see the point in trying to make things worse by insisting on being
> involved when the project cannot yet use "us" efficiently.

Actually this was the only thing I saw in your message that I disagreed
with, as I've been told by a number of folks that this was not the
reason it was closed?  Not sure.  This one probably goes back to the
lack of initial communication when it was closed... the real reasons may
or may not have ever been stated publicly.  It's moot as it's "water under
the bridge" now.

I respect your willingness to dive in, and I'll probably just do the
same.  I just felt that the worries about public debate of the topic
that I've heard voiced by some are unfounded and against the principles
of open development.  The project itself and the running of the project
is a "work in progress" too.  There's nothing to be ashamed of for
anyone involved if there are a few speed bumps along the way.  

Heck, have you ever seen the flamewars in the kernel developer's stuff?
Whew... much worse than this procedural problem, that's for sure, and
they don't worry about talking publicly.

I've heard nothing back from anyone on the suggestion that there be a
better interim procedure document for folks who want sponsorship, but
I'll give it a few more days.  Still willing to do this, if someone
feels it useful.  I feel it's marginally useful, only in that it
publicly admits that there's something "different than usual" going on
right now, but as I said before -- I *think* it's covered already by the
changes to the Developers Corner webpage.

-- 
Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>

GPG Key fingerprint = DCAF 2B9D CC9B 96FA 7A6D AAF4 2D61 77C5 7ECE C1D2
Public Key available upon request, or at wwwkeys.pgp.net and others.

Attachment: pgpV3pqn6FdvB.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: