Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
>On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 10:45:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> >If they can't put up a few buildd's, I'd hardly call that grounds for
>> >replacement.
>> I would.
>
>Good thing you're not a developer and thus don't get any say, then. This
>sort of brow-beating isn't appropriate conduct.
What's not appropriate conduct is selective quotation which distorts my
meaning. Here's the actual quote:
>>If they can't put up a few buildd's, I'd hardly call that grounds for
>... for months... with people offering to do most of the work for them...
>
>>replacement.
>I would. Specifically, replacement in at least some of the specific jobs
>which act as a bottleneck for adding buildds. Certainly not in *all* their
>many, many jobs.
When someone abuses his bottleneck position by using it to prevent others from
getting work done -- and does this for long periods, repeatedly, without
responding to questioning -- he needs to be removed from that position. If
you call that "brow-beating", well, maybe it is, but it certainly needs to be
done if Debian is to operate effectively.
Frankly, Ryan Murray's 'hanging on' to control over all buildds, without
actually doing the work, is *precisely* analogous to package maintainers
'hanging on' to their packages, without doing the work. Both situations are
severely detrimental to Debian as a whole.
You have several choices if you want to argue with me intelligently, rather
than acting like an idiot (of course, you're free to continue to act like an
idiot):
1. Argue that these situations are *not* seriously detrimental to Debian.
This would be a hard one to argue, I think.
2. Argue that there's a better way to deal with these situations than removing
the irresponsible people from their positions. This means describing this
better way in detail (you haven't), and giving examples where it has worked
effectively in a reasonable amount of time (let's say less than three months,
for starters).
3. Argue that there's a better way to remove these people than making loud,
public complaints. Again, this means describing this better way in detail,
and giving examples where it has worked. I haven't seen that. In contrast,
loud, public complaints apparently *have* been effective at getting
recalcitrant people to relinquish some of their duties. Note the appointment
of assistant FTPmasters (which came only after many complaints), the
formalization and slightly increased transparency of the DAM approval process
for NMs (which came only after many complaints), the appointment of release
assistants (which, to give you credit, came after relatively few complaints,
and has certainly forestalled other complaints) -- or on a smaller scale the
successful takeover of phpgroupware, and various other packages.
4. Argue that the problems don't really exist. Unfortunately, they do, so
this would just show that you're out of touch.
Reply to: