Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 02:42:54PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > It's hard to stay polite while running against walls.
> Right, but do you think that getting impolite will speed up anything
> or make anybody more cooperative?
No, but there were examples in the past where the "other side" ;) got
impolite first. So I think we shouldn't care much about that. Both sides
should act in a polite way.
> > I found the answer from AJ inpolite, so this can be viewed as being
> > subjective what each person think is polite or not.
> Right, it may be subjective; according to my subjective feeling I
> found AJ's answer appropriate, and calling people idiots not.
Well, when you read Nathanaels mail very careful, he didn't called him being
an idiot, but said he should act like an idiot, but he can go on like that
when he wants to act like that.
That's a smart way of a flame. Quite subversive, without saying exactly
something precise. :->
> > And it's easy to be on ajs side when you don't need your packages get built
> > but it can't because the buildd admin don't make his job.
> I only agree with AJ that Nathanael's rude statements are leading
> nowhere;
Well, getting rude (!=impolite) sometimes give better attention than just
bidding in a submissive way.
There already were tries to solve that without getting rude, but when those
are ignored, there's need to speak another language.
> However, I agree to Nathanael that something must be done
> about the buildd (and also other fields of) administration; James,
> Ryan & Co. really do a great job and they really earn more "thank
> you"s, but as a matter of fact they don't scale as fast as Debian
> does, so they should get assistance.
Indeed.
> So where are we: we obviously need more buildds, we obviously had
> offered machines and people willing (and hopefully capable of)
> administering them. On the other side, we have the people currently
> being in charge, which (according to your complaints) seem to ignore
> the problem and/or you. And third, we have the DPL who does not seem
> to give an official opinion.
At least I haven't seen any arguments from the "other side" (to avoid
getting personal and differentiate between person and position).
Maybe the DPL needs some more time, although he should have enough infos
about it, but he might busy atm.
> So what can be done about this? Calling people idiots will only help
> to destroy your credibility and reputation, so IMHO is not an option.
> Debian has democratic means of changing something if the DDs are not
> satisfied with their administration, so why don't you call for a GR?
Hmm, I would consider a GR as a last ressort of solving this problem,
because it means for me that the person is no longer trusted in some way.
I would prefer to solve this problem in a better way without a GR.
> Of course I have to spend some time to do some research about the
> matter on my own (currently I only rely on your statements) to base my
> eventual vote in a GR on first-hand knowledge. By now I would only
> support the initiation of a GR.
The problem with a GR is as well that most DDs are not aware of the problem.
Instead many (on IRC f.e.) are just annoyed of our "whining".
The funny thing about this is, that those are getting quite nervous as well
when they realize that their beloved package don't go into testing/sarge for
a similar reason. Suddenly this become the most important issue in the whole
project then and we (as porters) have to instantly drop our other work and
start porting/debugging their package. (slightly overstressed description of
the usual "please reschedule package xyz" mails to the porters lists ;))
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
Reply to: