On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 08:36:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I think it is perfectly reasonable for them to make their case on
> debian-devel. What is it about setting out the complaint here that
> offends you so much?
The charter for debian-devel is technical discussion about Debian
development. This isn't technical discussion, it's a demand that either
a delegate reverse a decision, or the DPL remove them. That's off-topic,
and utterly inappropriate from a non-developer; it would be on-topic for
the technical ctte if it was brought up by a developer (which Nathanael,
Ingo and Goswin aren't), and that developer was actually significantly
affected by the lack of buildds (which ttbomk, no one actually is --
were this a bug, it'd be "wishlist", for it to be appropriate to involve
the tech ctte it should be at least "important").
It's an ill-advised complaint because the right way for decisions to
be made is to have the person who has to clean up after them making
them. For buildds that's James and Ryan; and they've been doing that
very well for years now.
But what's particularly offensive about it, is that there have been
idiotic flamewars like this against James approximately every couple
of weeks for the past few years. *None* of them have been necessary
or productive, and if that's the reward for the level of contributions
James has offered the project, then it's clear that the project doesn't
want responsible committed people to be a part of it.
> Let's get the problems out in the open so they can be identified and
> fixed.
Flamewars on this list correlate very poorly with actual problems
facing Debian.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature