[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New-maintainer - STOP THAT SHIT



** On Jan 15, Anthony Towns scribbled:
> -mentors dropped
> 
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 10:49:00PM +0100, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > What if he/anybody else can't afford even a bigger HDD, not to mention a
> > computer? 
> 
> So what? We're volunteers already, we're not obligated to help the needy.
> If we do, it's because we choose to. If we don't, it's because we choose
> not to. If you can't help, you can't help. Big deal.
Now, that's a bit of twisted logic. First you suggest people to take the HW
they can't afford, and then you turn your back on them saying it's not your
business. If you come up with some advice, be prepared to support it -
otherwise your advice is worthless. And what you wrote above is simply
arrogant towards those who can't afford new hardware. You don't feel
obligated to do anything for them ("big deal") and yet you obligate them to
get new hardware if they want to work for you (as well)?

> > As much as I agree with you as far as the meritoric side of what you wrote
> > goes, I can see only one downfall - such a person which does all of the
> > above, or some of it is, to put it in a nice words, a mule. S/he does the
> > job, but has no rights as a part of community. Is that fair?
> 
> Who ever said anything about fair?
I did. And I didn't state it, I asked. 

> Of course it's not fair that people who just want to help get left in limbo,
> unable to do anything for no better reason than that someone else is just
> too busy.
Agreed.

> Maybe it's "fair" for those poor deprived souls to then get their revenge
> by starting YA pointless flamewar-come-bitch-session about it and waste
Hmm, don't you think that any war takes two sides? If there's only one side
in a "war" then you have a self-battery, or suicide. It is enough to
_ignore_ the arson attempts. Yet the "senior developers" failed to do it. So
don't blame others when you are one of the roaring crowd. (The "you" is
inpersonal - I say that just in case you take it personally)

> everyone's time as well as their own. If so, I begin to see why people
> say "life wasn't met to be fair".
Life isn't fair, but people can be fair.

> > > I mean, is it really difficult to see how approving someone who'll
> > > maintain a couple of packages that'll get dropped into optional or extra
> > > isn't really a high priority? Is it difficult to see how someone might
> > How can you tell that beforehand?
> 
> You can ask, maybe? Daniel's specifically said in this thread that
Did you ask?

> that's all he feels capable of doing at the moment. By contrast, when
> Chris Rutter and Phil Blundell joined, they were prepared to setup and
> maintain an autobuilder for the arm port, which they've since done and
> done tremendously well.
Perfect, cheers for them. But that's what the NM process is all about, isn't
it? To weed out those who are worthless (for the lack of better expression)
and to speed up those who will give something back to Debian. In a word - to
valuate them. And once somebody _passed_ the NM process (like myself, in 3
days) it should be expected that the rest of the process is a snap - and yet
I wait till today. And I don't sit just waiting - I do work on/for/with
Debian.

> By contrast, when I joined, eg, I was prepared to maintain a single
> non-free package. Fortunately, the "DAM" at the time (Joey) wasn't also
I have almost 20 of them waiting (debs, that is - generated from 3 upstream
packages) and, at least, one to take over.

> the head ftpmaster, and he wasn't in the midst of converting the archive
> to a completely new layout and rewriting all the applicable scripts. Nor
> was it December/January, which is a pretty common time for people to
I applied on July (don't tell me it's holiday time, or I'll get pissed off
:))

> take breaks and not be able to share the load, and it was also a few
> years ago now when there weren't as many new people trying to join as
> there are now; all of which means I didn't have to wait that long at all.
There are 72 applicants that passed the NM process waiting. It's not that
many. If the DAM processes one in an hour (unlikely, I admit) it's 3 days to
have them all in. One daily would be two months, and yet I already wait
almost 5 months.

> > > Is it also difficult to see how maybe publically whining and bitching
> > > about it when one DAM explicitly says to stop all the whining and
> > > bitching mightn't really convince anyone that all the people waiting in
> > > the new maintainer queue will actually be helpful productive members of
> > > the project once approved?
> > Give us/me the chance to prove it -
> 
> You've had a million chances to prove it already, why is having an
> @d.o account going to make all that much of a difference? Take Neal
Dammit, haven't you read what was written in the thread (taking all the
weeds away)? 1) I don't care about @debian.org e-mail - i.e. if you don't
wanna give me it, then be it. If I get it I will be proud (I mean it - it's
not sarcasm), 2) Being accepted as a debian developer is about having
_rights_ - you know all of them, 3) being a debian developer is about
working without hassle of bugging your sponsor

Is all of the above SO unreasonable? Hmm?

> Walfield, for example. He's worked on the "upstream" side of the GNU/Hurd
> port of Debian for quite some time and gave a pretty enjoyable talk
I work on the upstream source of the packages I created - I work on it
everyday, and work on it a lot. So what?

> on it at the zeroth Debian conference in Bordeaux last year. And he
> managed to do all this without being in the keyring, or able to upload
> packages. Coincidently or not, it seems he managed to get approved
> pretty quickly (applied 2000-11-27, AM assigned 2001-01-03, account
> created 2001-01-13).
So he applied 5 months after me, was accepted 2 months after me - and I'm
stil waiting for the DAM to approve my account (and it says on the page -
"no phone contact required", so I would think everything's OK with my
application)

> There are better things you can do to while away your time waiting for
> an account than vent on -devel or -mentors. We've got a ridiculously
I don't _vent_ here - take a look at the archives and count my posts. I
usually avoid posting here - for the very reason that I prefer to work than
to talk. And the thread wasn't a flamewar untill some "senior developers"
started bitching and whining. It is sooo easy to just listen to people and
don't take things personal and yet it seems so hard to do for many people
here. The issue is simple, the question is not very complex - "why do we
have such a bottleneck in the NM process?"

> high bug count you could be working on. There are a bunch of development
Sorry, but I do my work and I do it well. I will/am maintain bugs that are
in my software (and I do it all the time - outside Debian and also with the
debs I created - because there are quite a few people who use them). 

> projects that could use some help that you can work on with anonymous
> CVS. Doing some of these might even decrease the time you're waiting.
Oh, please! Now you're telling me to drop the work I do and work on
something else because that way I will be accepted _faster_???? Is that some
kind of motivation? Or a a "carrot-and-a-stick" method of encuraging?
Besides, even though I'm in the NM process (or rather after it) and that way
a new Debian developer in spe, I am NOT a newbie in development in general -
it's been 15 years this year I deal with programming, so please, don't treat
me like a child.

> 
> What's your choice saying about how you should be prioritized?
Prioritized?? I will repeat it ad nauseam - I'm still waiting for DAM
approval even though DOZENS of other people became Debian developers between
the time I applied and today - just take a look at the dates on
nm.debian.org. So how can you talk about proritization?

marek

-- 
Visit: http://caudium.net - the Caudium WebServer

/* A completely unrelated fortune */
 "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"   --
 Vroomfondel 
 
 
 
 

Attachment: pgp2sA36Wlksy.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: