Re: Announcement: Debian Pure Blends news
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Daniel Baumann wrote:
so then call them 'Debian Foo' team, since this is what they are and no
different to the various teams we have already (where some of them are
not limited being 100% packaging oriented; e.g. kde team that releases
livecds).
Strangely enough people are so keen on all this naming issues that the
technical part in the beginning of the announcement did not deserved
any comment so far. This fits perfectly into my observation that the
thread about renaming on the CDD list attracted more people than any
other technical topic before.
Your remark above just ignores that the concept tries to profit from
synergies inside these projects which for instance are reflected in
these tasks or bugs pages, a common technique to build metapackages etc.
The interesting thing in all the business I'm doing since several
years is that all the technical infrastructure which is used in Debian
Med and Debian Edu is instantly available for instance in Debian Science
or potential other projects. The main idea behind this stuff is that
we are factorising our tools to work for a specific $WORKFIELD$. This
makes a difference to technical projects like debian-live - and
strangely enough this concept seems to remain a well hidden secret
even if I'm constantly talking about this.
everything else is, imho, useless waste of time explaining and defining
things in terminology that does not matter for 99% of the people here
The push in the work of the Debian Science team (which formerly just was
a simple mailing list) might be a clear sign that finding a common
structure based on common technologies is a successful method to push
a project.
(ymmv, no offence intended et al. i'm glad and thankful for what you do
in and arround debian, but the naming game isn't one of them).
I did not felt offended and I accept that people do not like the
naming game. You can believe me that besides the business on the
mailing list a lot of other burden was on my shoulders and that I
personally was the one who hated this game even more than anybody
else here. If you had faced so many missunderstandings about the
things you want to promote just *because* the name implies a different
concept you are using for your project you would probably have drawn
the same consequence.
If we now would be able to continue *working* for the concept and
stop spending time criticising the name itself (the time for this is
over as I tried to explain) or the renaming process in general which
is definitely a waste of time I would be really happy.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: