Re: Removing Michael Alan Dorman <email@example.com) from the project.
After consideration, I must say thanks. While I might still disagree
with specific issues, and may have in fact set myself up to get run
out on a rail, now that I've had to think about this---whether I do
that any better than packaging is anybody's guess---I am glad you
caused me do so.
John Goerzen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Since you are now active,
This implies, to my reading, that you feel I was inactive for quite
some period of time---say, two months or more.
That is not, though, the case, since I have released updates to
various packages---including ones that close bugs!---in that time, and
even more recently..
> and did close a bug recently,
This also misrepresents things, although arguably to my benefit. I
have closed many bugs over time. Last December, I closed nearly 30
bugs one weekend.
Yet I did not close all bugs. I dare to say I will never be able to
close all bugs---I simply do not have the time. I may never get to
the oldest ones.
What, then do we do? What are our standards? What reponse time must
we volunteers maintain? And remember, _some_ specific issues we've
been discussing are not 800 days old, they're 40, or 39 or 16.
Furthermore, what do we do about the *other* packages that are in this
situation. bash, for instance---arguably more important than anything
I maintain right now---has bugs nearly two years old. How about
boot-floppies---it's got stuff as old as anything in my packages.
Cron? emacs (pick your favorite version)? LILO?
For better or worse, this happens. I'm not proud that it happens, and
I'm not proud that it happens to me, but it happens, and I don't think
this organization can relieve people of their duties unwillingly.
Our new leader has 65 bugs, two thirds mine, some of them two and a
half years old, many of those concerning modutils---an required base
package. Do we unelect him?
So what can we require, where do we write it down, and how can we
possibly grandfather in dpkg?
Or maybe I should say "you", since the only response I've heard is
netgod, who feels that my status in tbe BTS abrogates anything I might
have done, like creating the second ELF library package (ncurses), or
an NMU to dpkg just before the hamm release to make sure
--force-overwrites was turned on, or the fact that for nearly a year,
I was the only person actively working on the alpha, and as the first
person to use glibc full time I did NMUs to get glibc support put into
stuff like netbase and netstd and mount and the like.
I hope that's not the case, but if that's the way people feel---if
your worth is inverse proportion to the number of bugs in the BTS,
then so be it.
Of course, Johnie's got 75 bugs. 3/4 of mine. Some nearly two years
old. :-) Apache is probably as important as anything I maintain.
> I object to taking this issue into -devel, but if you want it that way, then
> so be it. I would prefer that it were not in such a public forum, however.
I wouldn't have done so, had you not said:
> > If you intend to trivialize ignoring bugs for hundreds of days, we
> > can always take the thread to -devel. I have been writing you
> > privately because I am hoping to get some positive response this way
> > without causing any undue embarassment in public.
This implied to me that you were interested in seeing this happen.
Sorry for my misunderstanding.