Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:13:53PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 11:06:39AM -0700, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> >
> > I'm assuming that when you attempt to convince them there is at
> > least some two way conversation?
>
> I've asked in the past, I've been told that they don't have
> time.
So, they did respond. Thus, two way communcation.
> Can you see the difference between that and flaming people on -devel?
Sure, there was communication from both sides, not silence.
> Can you possibly imagine that choosing that path might make it easier
> to have two-way conversations in future if something does change?
Sure, but both parties have to participate for two way communication (by
definition). If one side is simply silent your suggestion breaks down.
> > The DPL stepped in and improved the level of documentation provided
> > to NM applicants. This seems like a change for the better to me.
>
> Did you at any point ask Martin, either as front desk or as DPL, to
> look into this privately and in a friendly, non-accusatory manner?
No. Debian claims to be an open organization, why should this have been
looked into privately? The NM status pages I used are publicly
accessible. Based on the data available on the NM status page, this was
a problem effecting several other people too.
Communication with everyone involved up to the DAM approval stage was
smooth and near automatic. I did try a few times to make contact with
James, but got silence in return. So, I waited. Some might say not
long enough, but I did wait. Still silence. So I made my case publicly
asking for the DPL to step in and correct things.
> Did you at any point offer any help (and follow through on that
> offer)?
Offer to help with DAM approval? No. Didn't figure anyone would accept
an offer of help with DAM approval from someone awaiting it. Based on
some of the responses to that thread on -devel I'd say that's still the
case.
> Frankly, that sort of response makes it harder for me to countenance
> people responding to the points raised in this sort of thread at all.
> I don't believe we should be encouraging flaming -devel as a first
> resort.
It wasn't a first resort and by no means something jumped to. And, it
could have been avoided with a simple update on the NM status page. The
fact remains that communication was, and still appears to be, lacking
where James is involved.
--
Jamin W. Collins
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. --Aldous Huxley,
"Proper Studies", 1927
Reply to: