Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> My conclusion is that in order to achieve our goals of supporting our
> users and the free software community, we can't give too much credence
> to people just because they complain a lot. One of the ways in which we
> do that is to say "it doesn't matter how much anyone complains; it's the
> maintainers decision. if you don't like that, convince them otherwise,
> prepare a patch, work around the problem, use a different program,
> or use a different distribution".
This make sense. But if I correctly understood the situation, it would
be like if the maintainer was refusing to apply a correct patch.
Maybe I misunderstood the situation. Maybe the complainers should
write down exactly what they propose, on just one page, and then, the
maintainers should reply to each proposal why it is possible or
not.
>> Can't you keep off the discussion personal attacks? Can't you just
>> stick to facts and avoid any comments based your very own opinions
>> about others persons involved knowledge?
>
> No, because my goal isn't to justify James and Ryan's actions --
> I don't believe they need any justification. My goal is to try to get
> this community to stop ceaselessly attacking the people it relies on.
You are maybe in your good right, but to prove that, you must in some
way justify James and Ryan actions.
In other words, criticizing a work being done by Debian maintainers is
not necessarily a bad thing. If it has no ground, it should not be
very complicated to prove it and to drop the charges. If it has
ground, the problem is not the critics, but the mistake being made by
the maintainers (you do not fix a problem by fixing its result).
Telling to someone he is doing something wrong is not acting against
him, in some way, it helps him. Sure, such critics does not have to be
violent and aggressive, but if you refuse to discuss the whole
subject, it is likely to harrass the people that are trying to do
their best, just like James and Ryan.
>> If you cannot, you do not deserve a position when you can decide who
>> should be able to contribute or not.
>
> Really? Where were you when Chris Cheney wrote "the buildds FUCKING
> SUCK! The buildd admins must be incompetent or on crack" ? Have you been
> telling Chris that he shouldn't be involved in this thread because he
> doesn't deserve to be able to decide who should contribute when because
> he hasn't avoided personal attacks?
A mistake does not justify another one.
I did not read that mail, but, yes, Chris should not be able to decide
who can contribute or not either.
That said, the door is open. I am not saying that someone failing once
to "keep off the discussion personal attacks" do not deserve such
position. I'm saying that someone unable litterally to do that do not
deserve it, and hopefully, it is not your case and Chris case.
>> You are proving that "the people
>> who" should "do the judging are" not necessarily "the ones in charge
>> of the area", because technical knowledge in no way means management
>> capabilities.
>
> If you make the right decision, and are independently judged to have made
> the right decision, but are attacked for it nevertheless, who is at fault?
> You, for not fully persuading your attacker in advance that you're utterly
> blameless; or your attacker for making an issue out of something they don't
> actually understand?
Well, the whole thread already looks like a trial. To go on, maybe it
should be good to forgot what the other said and done (on both sides)
and just tell what we could accept to do to reach a consensus about
buildd.
>> Your attitude, from the outside, clearly does not speak in favor of
>> Debian. It just looks like a miserable conflict of power which have
>> nothing to do with improving Debian.
>
> There isn't any conflict of power here.
>
> Seriously, there's none. I defy you to find any.
>
> The problem that does exist is that people feel it's appropriate to make
> attacks like Nathanael did through this mailing list. What options are
> there, given that's the case? Ignore it and have discussions elsewhere?
> But doesn't that just make it less likely that the project will
> communicate well, and that there'll be more such threads later rendering
> this list and others even less useful? Politely reply and do everything
> possible to make Nathanael happy? Won't that likewise just encourage more
> people to make similar complaints as they figure that's the only way to
> get anything done? The only response I can think of that has any hope
> of a good outcome is strongly opposing the existance of such threads,
> and recommending alternatives, which is what I've done.
I'm not sure that Nathaniel is trying to impose something, I think he
truly sees himself as blocked for contributing by two persons. Writing
to this mailing-list is a way to go public, which is something that is
usually done when it is no longer possible to discuss in private.
Unfortunately, in many case, going public does not help much, it is
just an escalation of the crisis. Said to say, crisis should be public
at first to avoid the problem.
Now, I think the way out of the conflict is from Nathaniel and friends
to list what they would like to do precisely (the future), by avoiding
any references to what was not possible because of bla bla (the past).
And then, James and Ryan should study their proposal and reply step by
step precisely, by avoiding any references to what was not possible
because of bla bla (the past).
The result should a on public page of the buildd so every body is able
to know what decisions are being made, on what ground.
For instance, the title of the thread is: Debian needs more
buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted. There are 3
questions here, with apparently no clear answer.
> Again: if a developer thinks Ryan or James has made the wrong decision,
> then they can present the case of why that should be overruled to the
> technical ctte. If a non-developer can't convince a developer to do that
> for them, then they should be ignored.
I agree with that. I think anybody should have the right to express a
point of view on Debian. Altering Debian (like changing members
rights) is another story.
--
Mathieu Roy
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| General Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org/ |
| Computing Homepage: http://alberich.coleumes.org/ |
| Not a native english speaker: |
| http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to: