Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 02:48:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 11:41:28AM -0700, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 02:20:41AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 02:00:36AM -0700, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > > > So, they did respond. Thus, two way communcation.
> > > What communication, exactly, are you claiming was missing?
> > In this case, status updates, plain and simple. No NM application
> > should go for long (no more than three at most IMO) without an entry as
> > to what is happening.
> Even if nothing's happening? Whatever for?
Yes, even if nothing's happening. It really doesn't take that long to
put in an entry that says "Still waiting on X...", at least then it's
clear what the status is and that the application hasn't been forgotten,
> You also seem to be confusing the requirement that the applicant be
> told what's going on and the website be updated so everyone knows
> what's going on.
IMO, they should be one and the same. The process should be
transparent. And in some of the cases I know about personally, neither
the applicant or the web site were updated.
> > > 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!"
> > Yes, no comment for 3 years (based on the information on the page)
> > is just that, ludicrous.
> No, it's more than that: it's a wrong deduction. You made a mistake,
> you then insulted people based on that, and you don't think you did
> anything wrong?
The information on the web site clearly indicated no update. What else
was anyone who looked at the sight supposed to take away from it?
Should they have assumed that everything was fine and dandy? Other
applicants had updated comments. So, obviously comments are possible.
So, why would there be no comments on this applicant?
Do you assume that a BTS report with no response logged from the
maintainer is being worked on?
> > In this particular case there was some communication, in others
> > there was not. If the DPL didn't feel there was a problem, I don't
> > think he would stepped in to correct the non-problem. The fact
> > remains that the DPL *did* step in to improve communication with NM
> > applicants.
> From what others have said, no tbm didn't step in as DPL
>From his own statement, he stepped in as DPL:
From: Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <firstname.lastname@example.org>
That's true. Usually when I speak for new-maintainre I talk as NM
Front Desk; but in that specific case I did talk to James as DPL;
however, these were private discussions.
> > As a result the NM process seems to be better for it.
> The issue is whether or not getting these improvements requires telling
> people their actions are "ludicrous", or putting them on constant trial.
Judging from the fact that the situation only improved afterward, yes it
> > Simple communication. If you don't get it by this point, I'm sorry.
> For instance, the last time I can recall talking to the security team,
> I did so on the -private list. There certainly isn't anywhere like the
> nm status page you can look to find an update, and non-developers don't
> really have any hope. If you want to count that as two-way communication,
> you've got the same thing in your example: people get mailed, and mail
> back for a while, then nothing happens for a while and no more mail
> gets exchanged.
Yes, you contacted them, they responded, that's communication. When one
side contacts another and the other doesn't respond, that's not
> > > 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?
> > No, I spoke with my sponsor concerning the delay. I was not aware that
> > contacting the front desk would be of any potential help.
> Then, you know, perhaps you should've stopped at the above, and not added
> the gratuitous insults. Saying instead things like "Is there anything we
> can do about improving this?" instead of "This situation is ridiculous"?
But, the situation was ridiculous. How does ignoring that change
> Given that your information was obviously lacking, that you had very
> little experience of how Debian works, and at best only very one-sided
> experience with how n-m works, why were you so confident of your
> assumptions that you felt it appropriate to publically ridicule the job
> the DAM was doing?
Because I was positive the process could be done better. Were parts the
original e-mail harse. Sure. Was the situation accurately described, I
> > > > 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.
> > That's your opinion.
> ...and should thus be treated with utter ignore, I take it.
That seems to be how you're treating all suggestions from this thread.
You don't agree with them so you appear to be dismissing them as
useless. I'm listening to your arguments, but I don't agree with you.
I feel problems should be out in the open so they can be dealt with.
> Seriously, that's the primary cause of any reluctance on my part
> towards discussing things on this list. If you're really interested in
> communication, I think it'd be fairly valuable to work on addressing
> it, rather than dismissing it out of hand.
There doesn't seem to be anything anyone can say to convince you that
there _is_ a problem. I haven't dismissed any of your statements out of
hand. I just don't agree with your point of view on the situation.
> > > You've passed since, presumably. Have you done anything since then
> > > to make James' job easier?
> > No. It was made very clear by others during the -devel discussion
> > that my assistance would not be accepted.
> That's awfully convenient for you; it's alright for you to complain
> about people not doing enough for you, and you're not even _allowed_
> to actually do anything to help others.
Martin contact me after the above post and has indicated that my
application to be an Application Manager would be welcomed if I wanted.
I'm considering it and reviewing the requirements currently.
> In any case, afaics the only person posting to that thread that was
> rejecting offers of help was you:
How exactly was I "rejecting offers of help" in that post? I was asked
a question and responded with my view on the matter. From my experience
in the NM process, the only delay was DAM approval, not AM processing.
My AM processing took all of about a week, the AM was more than responsive.
> The obvious way (afaics) to fix problems you see with the n-m process is
> to first become an AM, so you have a properly informed perspective, and
> spend enough time doing that, and doing it well, that you can legitimately
> claimed to be experienced, then ask other AMs, and particularly the front
> desk and DAM what problems they see, and work out how to make them less
> of a problem. After demonstrating your competency and effectiveness like
> that for a while, then either offer to be an assistant DAM (if you think
> that's worth doing and you still think you're able), or start doing some
> other things that you think'll be effective -- having done helpful stuff
> for the n-m crew in the past, even if the idea seems stupid at first
> glance, you'll have earned the benefit of the doubt that most people'll
> be willing to at least try it out.
Working on it, thank you.
> The responsibility of the DAM (and hey, imagine that -- we're talking
> about buildds for a while, and then suddenly we're back to requiring
> the DAM's actions be justified lest he be deemed unsuitable for the
> job, sweet)
You brought it up with the references to past attacks on James.
> isn't "make everyone happy" or "accept people as quickly as possible",
> it's "ensure people accepted into Debian as developers meet our
> requirements". It'd be nice to have the former things happen as well,
> but not at a cost to the latter.
Are you implying that updating a status page (the communication that was
being asked for) somehow has the potential for causing someone to be
accepted that doesn't meet Debian's requirements?
> > Communication is a necessary part of any large project, and Debian is
> > certainly a large project.
> That's nice. It's a good thing communication's a part of Debian then,
> isn't it?
In most places, yes communication is a part of Debian and yes, it's a
> > Great, let him hack on the OS and let the individual with
> > communication skills communicate with others. At this point James
> > is in at least one position that needs communication skills, skills
> > that IMO he either doesn't seem to possess or at least use.
> That's odd, I thought you said that after Martin's response to your
> complaint last year your problems with the n-m stuff were resolved.
I don't recall saying that they were resolved, but rather that they had
changed for the better. I also dropped the topic after his involvement
until you decided to attempt to use it as a reference point of useless
> And this thread doesn't seem to be about a lack of communication, but
> rather about communicating an answer the recipients don't like.
I assume you're indicating that silence is their answer?
> But hey, whatever it takes to take those damned Debian elites down a
> peg or two, right?
I don't recall saying that. I've only asked for improved communication.
Jamin W. Collins
"Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups."
-- John Kenneth Galbraith