On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 01:31:47PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: [snip] > So, I haven't been following these threads, not because there isn't > some important content, but because I've been busy with a few other > things. Has the DAM or the project leader explained why they don't > want to appoint a second DAM to help out? I'm not interested in > speculations so much; I can speculate too. But if there's been an > actual answer someone could point me at, then it would really help. > I'm getting a lot of questions about this issue from people who are > sort of watching Debian politics from the sidelines, and as a > developer, it would help me a lot if I could explain what is going on > in the project. [snip] I second that. This (and related) thread(s) has too many flames already, but I think many people genuinely want to know what's up with the DAM and whether there's a way to help out. I don't have the answer to the issues raised here either, but some facts might help. :-) T -- MS Windows: 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can't stand 1-bit of competition.
Description: PGP signature