Re: Ideas about a GR to fix the DAM
2007/11/17, Anthony Towns <email@example.com>:
> I don't think there's anything to be done until the technical things are
> solved. Demonstrating that a DM keyring can be maintained by a team would
> be helpful to show that the DD keyring can be maintained by a team, but we
> haven't done that yet.
I agree with you that making sure that technical means will really work
is important before we start to tackle the social problem.
> I don't think anyone else (outside of Debian) has
> either. (As far as convincing James goes, jetring has the further problem
> that it's a bunch of perl and shell scripts; and he's a dead-set python
> addict these days -- but at least jetring's designed such that there's
> nothing stopping us from writing a compatible replacement in python)
I completely disagree that the personal preference of a programming
language should dictate the technical means we should choose. I'm
really happy that James does not prefer say PL/I and we would be forced
to clone an existing software in this or any other language.
> > 1. James doesn't feel he is a delegate, because he predates the
> > constitution (it awfully sounds like a ???the rules convenientely
> > only apply to others??? btw).
This is just strange. Is there any quote or evidence for such kind of
> The real problem is that James actually has good reasons for why a lot
> of proposals for fixing things won't actually work well. If he didn't
> have a history of sound judgement, it'd be really easy to just ignore
> whatever he thought and do something different.
There is no doubt that James has a profound judgement. The question
is whether there is nobody besides James who is able to judge similarly
and even if so why James does nothing against this situation and shares
> You can improve things by:
> - making things more fun and rewarding (so people are more inclined
> to dedicate more time)
> - making things easier (so each person can do more things)
> - having more people able to do each thing (eg, more DAMs,
> or making it easier for multiple AMs or other DDs to help an
> individual applicant progress)
Isn't this the point of this thread? Isn't the reason why this is not
implemented for several years clearly detected?
> In any event, getting angry about it has certainly been tried lots of
> times before, I don't think it's achieved much improvement to date.
Right, just getting angry does not solve anything.