Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 02:00:36AM -0700, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > 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.
> What communication, exactly, are you claiming was missing? Your email
> included the comment, eg, "First thing you should notice from this
> list is that there's an applicant that's been waiting on DAM approval
> with no comment for over 3 years (almost 3 1/2 years). Yes, 3+ years!
> That's absolutely ludicrous!"
> Certainly there wasn't a comment on the webpage summary; but as tbm has
> since described there was a fair degree of communication, and the long
> pauses were mostly due to that particular applicant not responding to
> requests from the frontdesk.
I guess your talking about me there.
I think I explained often enough that since the NM database burned
down all the old dates are screwed up. E.g. my ID was checked before
98 for example. Thats not 3 1/2 years but over 6 by now. If you
substract the 2 years that were totally my fault its still 4 years to
become a DD.
And I was not the only one on that list from a different part of the
threat. Why do you pick one application out and pretend that was the
Also, as you say there was no comment. So the claim was 100%
correct. It wasn't the DAMs fault since the Front Desk should have
commented the pings but that information wasn't available. The
database was screwed up and not commented, not the fault of the
> > > Can you see the difference between that and flaming people on -devel?
> > Sure, there was communication from both sides, not silence.
> And this is different how, exactly?
In one case there is communication in the other there isn't.
To be or not to be. Do you see a diference?
> > > 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.
> Your mail also says:
> ] * Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:09:47 -0600
> ] I spent the morning working up a short script to parse
> ] http://nm.debian.org/nmlist.php and gather a list of all individuals
> ] that are listed as waiting for DAM approval.
> Did you at any point attempt to communicate this to the frontdesk
> without including comments like "That's absolutely ludicrous!", "This
> is absolutely crazy!" or just asking for more information instead of
> demanding that "something" has to be done?
> > > > 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?
> Because posting to lists causes a whole bunch of people who don't have
> any idea what's going on to chime in with their two cents and demand a
> long justification that doesn't benefit anyone at all.
> If that weren't the case, I'd agree absolutely. Unfortunately it is the
> case, and everytime someone makes the assumption that flaming first is
> a good way to go about promoting beneficial change, it becomes even more
> the case.
> > > 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.
> You've passed since, presumably. Have you done anything since then to
> make James' job easier?
I haven't and still I am trying to make his job easier. (by offering
and supporting that other less important jobs get additional people to
do it so James has more time).
> > 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.
> Personally, one of the things I used to quite like about Debian is
> that you could join the project and be a gruff curmudgeon with no
> interpersonal skills at all, and still be respected just because you did
> good work. Aiming for technical excellence, and having people just chip
> in and solve problems when they see them rather than worrying about whose
> job it is to do what made for, IMO, a fun and effective way of writing
> and managing software. Sure, you have to treat some people differently;
> Espy and James were always terse and gruff (or at least intimidating and
> awe-inspiring), but that was okay because hey, they knew everything,
> and at least it was a good way of stopping no-nothing newbies like me
> from babbling away about things they didn't know anything about.
> Personally, I'd much rather work in that environment than one where
> everyone feels they should be saying something, even when they don't
> know what they're talking about, or one where people are constantly
> being put on trial and made to justify their actions. The evidence would
> suggest that that's not the way Debian works anymore, and I think we're
> incredibly poorer for that change.
> Personally, given the choice between two people, one of whom has more
> technical skills and experience, and the other of whom is more popular,
> a better manager, and a better communicator, I'd rather the person with
> the technical skills to be the one hacking on my OS.
Then James should be doing work on dpkg or kernel-source and not
coordinate buildds so he can hack at your OS and someone with better
communication skils can coordinate the buildd efforts. Or not?
Running wanna-build, the one coordinating instance for all buildds,
requires communication as "technical" skill for smooth operations. If
thats not even possible between members of the core team (not just
bystanders suggesting ludicrous things like you allways claim)
something is just wrong and has to change.