On Sun, Apr 28, 2002 at 04:55:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Anyway, I'm done. In closing, you'll note the consistent unpleasantness > of the response to my attempt to introduce a small amount of transparency > into the reasoning behind some packages getting left in incoming. Don't > worry. It won't happen again. Don't worry, I'm not all surprised that you're attempting to characterize your token, whack-a-mole effort as a noble one. Organizational transparency is achieved through process, not ad hockery. Your attempt to prove the limitations of the former by exhibiting the latter doesn't even begin to persuade. I've seen no procedural recommendations from you (unless "guys who upload packages should just prostrate themselves before the correct party, the identification of which is left wholly in their hands" counts). In fact, the last time a procedural recommendation was made, you shot it down without any proposals for a substitution. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200109/msg01617.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200109/msg01695.html You defended the status quo, and criticized efforts at improved process as "bureaucratic", "political", and not "good for the users". The user community that would be served by any particular package that remains stalled in queue/new nee incoming for months might well disagree with your assessment. -- G. Branden Robinson | Q: How does a Unix guru have sex? Debian GNU/Linux | A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount; branden@debian.org | fsck;more;yes;fsck;fsck;fsck; http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | umount;sleep
Attachment:
pgpAOUYcyBlDx.pgp
Description: PGP signature