Re: New-maintainer proposal
On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 17, 1999 at 02:02:26PM +0000, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > > > > I will post the proposal for a new new-maintainer procedure to the
> > > > > debian-project list shortly, If anyone is interested in joining the
> > > > > discussion (or on any other non-technical discussion) please subscribe
> > > > > to this list. You know the procedure :)
> > > >
> > > > Please keep this on devel as well. I don't have time to add another list
> > > > to my chores. We need one (1) list that can be subscribed to, on which
> > > > important traffic like this can be discussed. Multiplying the lists that
> > > > _must_ be subscribed to, in order that I may be a contientious maintainer
> > > > is simply crap, that fractures the group and keeps some segment of the
> > > > maintainership uninformed. This lack of an informed membership is, in my
> > > > estimation, a primary reason for all the confusion and conflict that is
> > > > currently comming down about such things as new-maintainer.
> > >
> > > I don't see any logic to this argument.
> > The logic is quite simple. The more information you put onto lists that
> > "people need not subscribe to", the more clueless those people become.
> "People don't need to subscribe to debian-devel list". AFAIR, only
> -devel-announce is considered highly important to subscribe to, and not even
> that if you read it through mailing lists archives of any kind.
When I joined the group, there were only 3 lists, -private, -devel, and
-user. -private was for developers only, and at that time had 0 traffic.
-devel was for developers, but others could subscribe, although they were
discouraged from initiating discussions on that list, and were sent to the
I subscribed to all three and learned a lot about user needs by doing so.
It was only when I started working on "The Debian Linux User's Guide" that
I found myself without the time needed to keep up with the -user list.
As soon as the group started to grow, the solution to traffic began to be
the creation of alternative lists. As we have grown, the number of "sub"
lists has grown as well, and it seems that the confusion and uncertainties
we are dealing with today grew from those very fracturings of the lists.
> > > are not interested in 'project politics' can avoid subscribing to
> > > -project.
> > These "people" you refer too are Debian developers, right? Why would a
> > person expect to be a developer and not need to know about such things as
> > "project politics"
> We all know what Jules meant by "project politics" - the usual flamewars
> about various non-strictly-technical issues regarding Debian. I (and I
> believe many others) think that those things don't belong to the
> debian-devel mailing list, but on the debian-project list.
I am constantly surprised by the number of people who see, what I see as a
good discussion, as a flame war. Several of our developers are unable to
put two sentances together without an explative, and we all know who they
are and make allowances for their behavior. (except the new guys, who are
usually willing to take it personally ;-)
If "project politics" is to be construed as "flame wars", then what _do_
we call a political discussion?
> Don't get me wrong - flamewars are okay, can even bring some conclusions
> or results - but only if they don't happen in inappropriate places. Now
> that we have debian-project mailing list, debian-devel has become an
> inappropriate place for non-technical flamewars.
So, to stay away from "flame wars" I should not subscribe to
debian-project, but my complaint to Wichert was that he was going to move
the discussion of new-maintainer to that list, eliminating my input, and
my knowledge of the discussion from something that I think is of utmost
importance to the group!
Do you consider this thread to be a "flame war"? I don't, and I _do_
consider it to be a discussion of project politics.
> > > Most (um.. this is a guess, I don't know) maintainers *aren't*
> > > subscribed to -devel as it is, so you it certainly currently fails its
> > > goal as a place where important traffic can be discussed.
> > The fact that developers can _not_ subscribe to devel is a _large_
> > mistake.
> Who said developers can not subscribe to debian-devel list?
Sorry for the poor wording. Replace "can" with "are allowed to", i.e.
> > > Also note that some people may not consider this important traffic.
> > Then they should not have accepted a developer position with the Debian
> > project.
> Conclusions, decisions, votings - these are important, sure. Whole ~500-msgs
> flamewars regarding the subject are rarely important.
So, do what I do when a thread turns into a flame war, just don't read it!
I am a fairly contientious developer, and I feel that it is my duty to
know what decissions are being made in my behest, but it becomes more
difficult every time a list splitoff occurs. I simply view the high
traffic loads as a "cost of doing business", which everyone who wants to
become a developer should be prepaired to shoulder. Obviously, I am in the
minority opinion on this issue ;-)
> Anyway, here I am, talking about CC:ing inappropriate lists, and CC:ing
> a couple of such myself... :< :(
'Tis a puzzlement ;-)
I think the main point I would make about the proposal for new-maintainer
is this: If this is a proposal that developers are going to be expected to
vote on, then the discussion should be carried on debian-vote, not some
list who's primary purpose is to provide an adequate venue for flame wars.
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: email@example.com Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-