Re: On the "Debian Maintainers" GR
- To: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: On the "Debian Maintainers" GR
- From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:40:44 -0700
- Message-id: <87hcnhmm3n.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
- In-reply-to: <873azb82jq.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> (Russ Allbery's message of "Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:04:09 -0700")
- References: <20070726141142.GA16997@ouaza.com> <20070726142029.GA13648@bee.dooz.org> <1185461624.3104.103.camel@silicium.ccc.cea.fr> <20070726150302.GB5291@bee.dooz.org> <1185463169.3104.112.camel@silicium.ccc.cea.fr> <20070726155219.GD6462@bee.dooz.org> <1185465887.3104.123.camel@silicium.ccc.cea.fr> <20070726163417.GI18102@ouaza.com> <20070726164428.GA11824@artemis.corp> <874pjraz0g.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20070726172324.GN18102@ouaza.com> <873azb82jq.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
> So far, the only arguments I've seen of that type are "I don't want to
> be associated with the project but I still want to maintain Debian
> packages" and "I don't want to go through the NM process just to
> maintain a single package." I'm sympathetic somewhat to both of those
> arguments, but I don't think they're compelling.
I'm not sure that anyone cares horribly much, but since I've been fairly
vocal in opposition to this GR, I did want to mention somewhere in public
that I've been thinking a lot about it, listening to more of the arguments
presented (particularly by Steve Langasek and Sam Hocevar), and have just
changed my vote to be in favor.
I don't think there's really any new arguments that haven't already been
stated, but for whatever it's worth, the argument that finally slightly
tipped the balances was the idea that more decentralization and more ways
for people to try ideas if the consequences of failure are managable is a
good thing in a project of this size.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: