Re: Some proposals
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> When evewryone is responsible for something, no one is
> responsible for it.
>
I think there can be a happy medium between the two extremes but I'm not
going to press this argument.
>
> Really? How does one get to be a member of the Core?
A bureaucratic detail which is not important this early in the discussion.
> Who are they?
Anyone who has been around Debian for a while knows there are a few people
who do a disproportionate amount of the infrastructure work (TINC.) And
we have a good idea in our minds who we would trust to do say a glibc NMU
and who we wouldn't let within 10 miles of GNU hello. When and if the
time comes we can have more formal criteria.
> Where do they meet?
>
Where do important Debian decisions get discussed now? Here, on IRC,
private email etc. Not important as long as communication is going on.
> > Proposal: Stop releasing altogether
>
> Not a happy thought for the people who run stable on mission
> critical systems.
>
If I were running anything mission-critical I would make damn sure I
tested it myself first regardless of what the vendor claimed. Whether
that vendor is Debian Microsoft or Sun doesn't matter.
Also mission critical depends on what the mission is. If I'm setting up a
machine for a quake LAN party my needs are different than if I'm flying an
experiment on the space shuttle. Why should we be lumped together?
> Why all this rush to gather new constituencies at the expense
> of stable sets of old customers? The sqeaky wheel getting all the
> lubrication so the other wheels squeek in turn?
>
Does a win for one necessarily imply a loss for the other. I don't want
the people who run servers be shortchanged as I'm one of them. But can't
others be acommodated? We should at least try if the rhetoric about a
universal operating system means anything.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@debian.org>
La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
Reply to: