Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)
Note: if you're just skimming over the debian-devel mailing list, look
for my May 31 message with the useless subject line:
Re: so what? Re: Debian development modem
In it, I include URLs for what I think are some of the more significant
messages in this thread.
I'm hoping that by pointing at some of the better expressions of the
concept that we won't have to deal with people being confused about
the concept so much. [The concept doesn't effect hamm, unless we
can use some variants on the idea to quickly fix remaining problems
in hamm, but I'm hoping that these concepts can make slink and/or
its successors be released sooner.]
Craig Sanders <email@example.com> wrote:
> firstly, those who just want to work on producing packages and improving
> debian just keep on doing what they're doing, uploading stuff into
> 'unstable' as always.
> a second team focuses on taking the best of unstable and making a CD
> release of it, making *whatever* modifications are necessary (according
> to their goals) to any package AND passing those changes back to
> the package maintainers. They would also work on boot disks, the
> installation scripts and so on.
> a third team could focus on marketing and market research. promoting
> debian and ferreting out the details of exactly what debian users (and
> potential users) want, and drafting proposals (using the net standard of
> "rough consensus and working code") on how to implement those wants.
That's a pretty good idea, too, if we can find people interested,
and if we can live with Bruce being amused.
> it should be permitted, of course, to be on several teams at once. in
> fact, it should be encouraged.
I seem to be in a me-too mode this morning, but: yes.
> debian always was intended to be a base for other distributions, maybe
> we should demonstrate how that could work by doing it ourselves....
> create a little bit of separation between "back-room techs" and
> "production" and "marketing".
> one important point...if we do anything like this, we should make avoid
> creating an "us" versus "them" attitude between the teams. focus on
> co-operation between the teams who are each doing one important piece of
> the work, rather than on competition and power games.
> craig sanders
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com