Re: Explications needed...
Josselin Mouette <email@example.com> wrote:
> An arm buildd maintainer not reading firstname.lastname@example.org is simply not
> doing his job as buildd maintainer.
Please show where reading everything on email@example.com is
given as a requirement for buildd maintainership.
> You can't pretend to be the one
> handling builds for the whole archive while not following discussions
> around problems specific to this architecture.
Similarly, people can't pretend that mailing debian-$arch is a
substitute for emailing $firstname.lastname@example.org (which is in the
buildd section of the devel-ref).
In message http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/12/msg00161.html
and the parent of
Aurelien Jarno comments about emailing email@example.com, so what
has this debian-arm@lists vs arm@buildd to do with anything?
> Would you trust a release
> manager who wouldn't be reading debian-release?
I'd trust one who didn't read eveything on debian-release.
I'm uncertain about who did what on the whole RogueOrNot buildd, but
much of that email seems to be unhelpful. This looks like an old
problem: the project doesn't recover gracefully if people in its
organizational structure become unresponsive. Any bright ideas on how
to fix that?
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct