Re: MIPS port backlog, autobuilder machines and some arrogance
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 03:32:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > It also means that, if it were easy to add some redundancy,
> > > > it would already have happened. Which in turn means that it's hard.
> > > Again, read what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote. Difficult isn't
> > > the same as impossible, and hard isn't the same as too hard.
> > So, basically what you're saying that it's hard, and that nobody should be
> > allowed to comment on it because the already delegated people are, what?
> > Perfect? Self-sufficient? Incapable of changing their ways?
> No, I'm saying that nobody who's incapable of assisting with solving the
> problem should be expounding on it. You're welcome to do whatever you
> want on your own time, of course, but if you're going to start accusing
> the DPL, or the buildd maintainers, or anyone else of not doing their
> job on these lists, then you'd better have made absolutely sure you've
> got the knowledge and the experience to back that sort of claim up,
> and that you're able to demonstrate that at all times.
Note that I'm not talking about the buildd issue, but only about the
firstname.lastname@example.org thing. I believed that my quoting in the original
indicated that; if not, I'm sorry.
And to answer, yes, I believe I can back up what I said on the topic.
Perhaps there are some intricate details in the system of how donations
are processed, but I rather doubt that it isn't something that a developer
like myself could handle, provided one is diligent enough. (Please don't
interpret this as disrespecting the HD post or Mako -- I certainly don't
> > > BTW, I can't see where I did anything of the sort. I said your post
> > > contributed nothing to the discussion, was unhelpful and distracting and
> > > wrong, and, as such, said that you hadn't contributed anything other
> > > than trite cliches.
> > I don't know about you, but I take it as an insult when someone accuses me
> > of not knowing anything about something and tells me to shut up.
> Again, I never accused you of not knowing anything about this. I said
> that your post didn't demonstrate any knowledge -- "more redundancy is
> good" isn't any more helpful than "too many cooks spoil the broth", or
> "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".
> All those things are true, and can be a useful starting point for
> thinking about problems that show up; but they're a starting point only,
> and mindlessly repeating them at people who are already well aware of
> the cliches isn't helpful.
I'm not mindlessly repeating it, nor am I convinced that the people are
already well aware of them (most probably aware of the principle, but
obviously not in the specific case). I don't remember but one instance when
someone said that the hardware donations delegate was unavailable, and the
issue wasn't discussed further or in the proper forum -- and even that
memory is vague so it might have been even less noticeable. To repeat what
I said before, I think that the best, and probably the most logical,
explanation is that the DPL and the delegate simply haven't remembered or
had the chance to consider expanding the hardware donations team -- my
"expounding" on the "cliche" was supposed to be a simple, clear reminder.
> > And there you again. You seem rather inclined to judge other people's
> > competence based on, well, I've no idea on what do you base these claims on.
> Well, an obvious guess would be the posts you've just made. You know,
> the ones I was criticising as being trite and uninformative, while
> pretending at being of profound importance?
Stop accusing me of reading too much into what you wrote when you seem to
have found a pretension at being of profound importance in a comment that
I explicitely marked as obvious and unassuming.
2. That which causes joy or happiness.