Re: Questions for the DPL candidates
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> Really, I think this is a necessary consequence of having small meetings
> of the relevant people; the alternatives are to invite everyone -- which
> is more or less the same as just having the discussion on the lists,
> which has its own problems that I hope have adequately been covered
> elsewhere; or to have meetings that don't generate any conclusions --
> which strike me as a waste of time.
I think this is interesting from a social point of view. Would
increasing the number of teams inside the project increase the number of
incidents like this? If so, would people become more or less tolerant of
them?
> OTOH, doing RM work is pretty difficult at the best of times, and only
> becomes more so when it becomes necessary to start proposing major and
> controversial changes like this, and without the forthright support of
> the DPL, rapidly approaches impossible. IMO, anyway.
Sure. If it's the opinion of the release managers that something of this
magnitude is the only way to fix the problems we face in producing new
releases, then that's something that ought to be supported. However,
in this case we've already seen a great deal of debate over whether
various bits of the proposal solve problems in the optimal way. Clearer
communication of what the problems being addressed were would have
helped here, as would presenting it as something more obviously a
proposal.
> That said, I don't think any of the implementation has been started yet,
> and it certainly won't be completed 'til sarge is released; so there's
> plenty of time for further comments or tweaks or even reinventions.
Absolutely. I'm heartened to see that amongst the flaming, there /is/
solid technical discussion going on. We do have problems, and this is
(so far) the best proposal we've had for dealing with them. I just wish
it had been reached somewhat differently.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.devel@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: