Re: Bug#150551: ITP: wmcoincoin -- Stupid dockapp for browsing DaCode sites news and board
On Sat, Jun 22, 2002 at 12:12:20AM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> Did I say that? I talked about packages that might only be used by a
> fraction of Debian's *users*. The fact that my particular subset of users
> includes children is not central to my argument.
Then why bring it up? What was the point? You used phrases like "should
be allowed", which has the implication that someone's trying to forbid
something. From the context, I assumed it was the people who disagree
about packaging everything who were somehow trying to forbid the thing
you were arguing should be allowed. After the paragraph I read as an
impassioned plea for allowing people to package things they want to
package, the final paragraph seemed to have a defiant, heartfelt, 'do it
for the children' tone, though it wasn't clear what the defiance was
aimed at--surely not the process of discussion and self-examantion by a
maintainer with an ITP? (Which is where this thread started--check the
subject line.) Maybe it was my misinterpretation of the email that made
it an apologia for maintainers' prerogatives. But...
> My premise was given earlier in the message where I expressed concern
> for Debian's users' needs and the right for maintainers to work on
> meeting those needs.
We're back to the theory that 'maintainer's rights' need defending. Give
me a break! It'll be a cold day in hell before the debian organization
will allow anything to get in the way of a maintainer uploading a
package. Even, apparantly, simple discourse.
> So, you'll shoot me down and say I'm being melodramatic solely because
> I mention children as part of my defense for my position?
Oh, no, not soley because of the children. I find the whole position
overblown; the children were just the latest victims of a long thread in
a tradition of long threads spawned when someone raises a question about
an ITP. (The message I replied too wasn't atypical for such a thread, it
just happened to be the one I was reading when I hit 'r'.) Trouble is,
there just *isn't* a jack-booted cadre of package-eliminators enforcing
anybody's personal "stupid package" opinions--I'm not sure what the
threat is that needs to be guarded against. Yet for some reason this
same tired line about defending the maintainer's rights keeps rising up
from the grave to haunt us with the (as yet unrealized) specter of
maintainer censorship.
(Or did I miss the part where someone actually threatened a dire
consequence should further useless packages be uploaded to the archive?
I don't think anyone's packages will be summarily removed from this
plane of existence, no one will be drummed out of debian in disgrace,
and I don't know that Joseph even owns an ill-tempered sea bass--so an
easily-escapable situation involving an overly-elaborate and exotic
death is probably right out. Am I being silly now? Quite possibly. Of
course, you *are* still reading. I suggest at this point that everyone
roll his chair back, get up, go outside, maybe take in a movie or
something, and just stop fretting over the need to defend debian
developers from repressive censorship. If anyone really wants to fight
for someone's rights, contact amnesty int'l. Sorry, they don't have an
oppressed debian developer department.)
(That whole last paragraph was parenthetical; you would have been better
off skipping it. This one as well.)
--
Mike Stone
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: