Re: Bug#150551: ITP: wmcoincoin -- Stupid dockapp for browsing DaCode sites news and board
On Sat, Jun 22, 2002 at 12:58:42AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> Then why bring it up? What was the point?
I wanted to say "this matters to me" and in so doing gave my personal
reasons why. I didn't know that I had to be purely objective to write a
sympathetic note of support.
> You used phrases like "should
> be allowed", which has the implication that someone's trying to forbid
> something.
I'm not so stupid. I know nobody's going to force the ITP to be dropped,
but peer pressure can lead to someone dropping what otherwise would be a
valid contribution to the project.
> After the paragraph I read as an
> impassioned plea for allowing people to package things they want to
> package,
Impassioned plea? Get real. I talked about a tenet of the social contract,
serving the needs of the users. I talked about the value to the users of
having their little-used packages properly supported. Because I talk
articulately about needs and values, it is automatically "impassioned"?
> 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?
The defiance is in your head. My note was in support for wmcoincoin being
packaged, and I stated personally relevant reasons why I thought, in
general, maintainers shouldn't be dissuaded from packaging "marginal"
material based solely on the grounds that it is "marginal".
The tone was supportive of the ITPer, not defiant against would-be "bullies"
that would prevent the package from being put in the archive. If you read
something else into my post, might I suggest that you have seen arguments
over "avoidance of Debian bloat" one too many times, and you are so sick of
it that you are completely desensitized to anyone's legitimate concerns. You
just lump me together with all the people who have ever posted about this
topic, crying "censorship!" That's certainly not what I was aiming to
convey.
> (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...
It was misinterpretation. You have no idea what prompted me to post, but
you're so full of yourself that you think you have me all figured out.
> > 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.
Absolutely wrong. Maintainers can and do listen to what their fellow
maintainers are saying, and after a particularly long and gruelling flame-
fest may decide it is not worth the bother fighting to explain why they
are ITPing a package. The end result can be that they give up a package.
Sometimes the end result can be that they give up all of their packages.
Not that I think that either of these scenarios are likely outcomes in this
case. Both outcomes are more extreme responses to the mild resistance
against this ITP than I would expect. Still, anything I can say to
help other developers feel understood when they are facing criticism, I will
say.
> 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'.)
See, as I suspected. So, you see my message as "typical" and then attribute
every misguided notion anyone has ever had about how packages are accepted
into Debian to me.
> 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.
I have seen other legitimate points about why this package shouldn't be
included, but the "it's marginal and used by only a few people" one struck a
chord with me. Why should a maintainer get grief over this? I say
"maintainers have a right to package what they want" in much the same way as
one might say "I have a right to my own tastes in music" in defense of those
tastes. I certainly didn't intend to make a federal case of it.
The word "censorship" is yours. When I speak of "the maintainer's right"
I'm arguing for the *legitimacy* of a maintainer packaging a piece of
software used by very few people. That is something that seemed to
be called into question by several developers here.
> (Or did I miss the part where someone actually threatened a dire
> consequence should further useless packages be uploaded to the archive?
Now who is throwing out red herrings.
> 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,
Sure, you can twist what I said and make a farce out of it if you would
like. Clearly a guy can't say a few words of support without being
ridiculed.
[ more crap deleted ]
> (That whole last paragraph was parenthetical; you would have been better
> off skipping it. This one as well.)
You shouldn't have written it if you didn't want it to be read. It truly
shows your underlying mindset. From the beginning, you called me to task
for writing a note of support for a developer beleaguered by criticism for
ITPing a package. You called it an "impassioned plea" and "melodramatic"
merely because of my choice of words which you prejudged to be associated
with and impassioned, melodramatic stance. And I am sure nothing will
convince you otherwise.
Well, have a nice day, Michael. You've really opened my eyes. I know in
future to take your criticisms with a grain of salt, given that you've made
up your mind about my true motives before I have even opened my mouth.
Ben
--
nSLUG http://www.nslug.ns.ca synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca
Debian http://www.debian.org synrg@debian.org
[ pgp key fingerprint = 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ]
[ gpg key fingerprint = 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: