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

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 11:14:46AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Nobody seems to be so unhappy that they want to propose a general
> resolution.

Or they are not quite so arrogant as to think they could pick someone out
of a hat who would *absolutely* be a better choice, which is more or less
what any meaningful GR would have to do (one directing the DPL to select a
new DAM, without saying who, is not terribly useful, IMO).

So instead, we try to make it clear that we *are* dissatisfied, without
having to spend a lot of *everyone's* time on running a GR that many
folks might vote against on principle ("We shouldn't be making this sort
of decision for the DPL"), whether or not they think the NM process has

Even in a perfect system, not everything is *best* solved by a mass vote.
That is better left for electing those who make the smaller decisions
(the DPL), or as a last resort for fixing grave and otherwise untenable

If I thought a GR would actually provide a useful resolution to the
problem, I wouldn't hesitate to put one up. I don't, in this case, mostly
due to previous conversations. And so, instead, I'll restate the offer that
I'd rather try to do something useful to help fix it - if anyone will say
what *needs to be done*.
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>

Attachment: pgpdCVRIn_Ejz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: