Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, Guy Maor <email@example.com>, Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)
- From: "David Engel" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 20:21:23 -0500
- Message-id: <19980601202123.A18222@elo>
- In-reply-to: <19980601034321.H8754@earthlink.net>; from Rev. Joseph Carter on Mon, Jun 01, 1998 at 03:43:21AM +0000
- References: <19980531075649.Q3613@test.legislate.com> <19980531220843.B15701@elo> <19980601034321.H8754@earthlink.net>
On Mon, Jun 01, 1998 at 03:43:21AM +0000, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
> David, I'm certain SOMETHING will come of it. Hang in there. If we all do,
> something will get done. I'm certainly interested and willing to help in
> any capacity I can once we decide what exactly we're gonna do. =>
I sincerely hope you are right that something [good] will come of it.
I'm still skeptical.
On Sun, May 31, 1998 at 09:50:43PM -0700, Guy Maor wrote:
> Why does Ian's role as leader enter into it? Propose a motion as to
> how you think releases should work. We don't have to wait to start
> hashing out a consensus.
Reread some of my earlier messages. I firmly believe that a lack of
strong leadership has been one of the biggest contributing factors in
Debian's inability to put out timely releases. Too many times, I have
seen Debian set lofty goals for itself only to totally forget about
them or outright disregard them after just a couple of months. Any
endeavor to put out timely releases is doomed to fail unless it has
the full support of the project leader, who must be willing to step in
and take action to keep things on course when they start to drift.
To clarify, I am not expecting Ian to get deeply involved in
developing the plan for the next release, though he would be more than
welcome to join. I am, however, expecting Ian to give his full
endorsement of the effort and commitment to follow through on the
On Mon, Jun 01, 1998 at 01:21:53AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> To get the ball rolling, I think I like the idea Guy
> presented: Have a continuosly updated set of stable and unstable
> packages (maybe keep the last N versions of packages - but that is a
> This is getting way too complicated.
I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves here. The idea
expressed above is an implementation strategy. I would much rather
see us start with a discussion on goals for the next release.
Examples of the goals I think should be considered, include but is
certainly not limited to the following:
Whether or not to adopt apt.
Whether or not to conform to FHS.
Whether or not to adopt linuxconf.
Choosing a target date for the release.
Only after we have reached a consensus on goals, should the discussion
move on to implementation strategies.
David Engel ODS Networks
firstname.lastname@example.org 1001 E. Arapaho Road
(972) 234-6400 Richardson, TX 75081
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org