Re: Complaint

[Ingo Juergensmann <ij@2003.bluespice.org>]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 12:37:34AM +1100, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote:

> > - As http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-week-big.png shows, there
> > are some archs already have a working wanna-build access since days,
> > namely mips, mipsel and powerpc.
> > I really feel discriminated by this situation.
> And it's clearly an evil plot against you/m68k as can be seen in the
> graph above. 

Oh, great... I wouldn´t have expected that getting polemic is a necessary to
become DPL... :-//

> If I look at it, I see that most buildds are not
> working, with some exceptions.

That I´m complaining doesn´t necessarily mean that other archs/persons don´t
feel the same. It just means that the others are just not complaining. 

> > It seems as if the archs that are managed by Ryan Murray are
> > preferred in their restoring process
> This might be related to the fact that Ryan is responsible for the
> whole buildd infrastructure.  Clearly it must be easier to get his
> buildds running, then others, as the latter involves coordination with
> others, etc.

Looking at the graphs ti seems obvious that the way how to get buildds
running again is known for about 5 days now. 
And 5 days are not enough time to inform other archs or give them access as
well?
Why should it be easier to get the buildds on mips(sel) and powerpc running
than to tell others how to do the same? Please give explanation. 
AFAIK the source of buildd is the same for all archs. So, I can´t see any
difference in setting up the buildd for other archs than setting it up for
the above mentioned archs. 
And when the source should be different now, why haven´t the other archs be
informed to build a new buildd from CVS?  

>  And please remember that this is not a competition
> between e.g. mips and m68k.

Why do you suppose something that wasn´t included in my original post?
That´s your personal assumption and not mine. 

> We're trying to restore our services, and
> obviously the crucial or easy ones come first.  You have to start with
> on buildd, and it's fairly obvious to start with the one you're in
> control of.

Granted. It´s easier to find a solution for one buildd.
But the solution is there for 5 days now. It is known to be working and
still there is no information yet, what is changed nor what other archs can
do to speed up the restore of their buildds. 

> > whereas others doesn´t even get a status update when
> Mails like
> http://mailman.nocrew.org/pipermail/m68k-build/2003-November/007792.html
> or
> http://mailman.nocrew.org/pipermail/m68k-build/2003-December/007932.html
> show that updates are being made, or information being asked for
> needed for the restoration.

Yes. In both cases the informationwas given nearly instantly - and nothing
happened yet. 
When I tell someone "Give me some information to get the service working
again" that person can expect that when he is giving the information to me,
the service will be available again to him. 
So, when requesting new ssh keys from me make me believe that I´ll get
access to w-b back as soon as I give the needed information, I can expect
that this will happen asap. 
It didn´t happen so far.  

> > - James Troup wrote then (as a reply I think) on Thu, December 11,
> > 2003 19:34 a mail to m68k-build list to get a status about the m68k
> > buildd machines (new ssh key, kernel info, etc.). He then got
> > answers he asked for.
> So basically your complaint is that after 3 days (including the
> weekend, so effectively 1 business day) it's not fixed yet. 

No. My complaint is that there is no information *what* is happening nor
*when* it will happen, whereas other archs are already working for *days*. 

> Sorry, I just cannot take your complaint seriously. 

That´s sad - for you, not for me, that you´re taking complains not serious
although there are reasons for doing so. :-(

> I'm not saying that
> everything's perfect, but I know that debian-admin is working as hard
> as they can.

So do I. I´m really satisfied and happy about the work the admin team did to
get services back shortly after the compromise. 
But the complaint is not only about the non-working services but as well
about the bad way of communication. 
For example James could have mentioned in his mails why he needs these
information and when the service will be back. "Please give me your new ssh
keys, so we can setup access again within two days." instead of "Please give
me your new ssh keys."

>  I also know that James for example fixed nm.d.o on
> Friday and worked on a very important issue which is more important
> than any buildd (or than nm.d.o).  And he's away for the weekend.  Of

So, you´re telling that only one person can fix things?
Thank you to agree with my opinion. :->

> course, I'd like to see all issues fixed instantly; but not having
> fixed something non-essential after one business day is not that bad,
> given we have ~700 RC bugs.  Why don't you contribute something
> worthwhile and complain about those people (to them), (or send in
> patches, hint hint).

Oh, funny... 
You excuse James as being busy with more important things and denying the
same for me? How can you know that I don´t have other important things to do
as well? Or why do you believe that I´m not working on something worthwhile
to contribute in the meantime?
*klingeling* Yes, you can´t know that because I haven´t communicated it to
you. Does this ring bells on you? 
When someone doesn´t communicate about anything you can´t know what is
heppening or what that person is working on. 
Thank you for confirming my complaint again. :->

> Yes, it would be nice if more people were working on our buildd
> infrastructure.  Just giving root to every Debian developer so they
> can fix their issues themselves is not going to work.

Who said that every developer should have root access? Me not. 

So, maybe you can contribute worthwhile when you give an explanation *what*
is happening and *who* is working on the issues. 
For me it seems that only Ryan is responsible for wanna-build and buildd and
James for some different tasks. 
And when you do think that it would be better to have more people working on
the buildd infrastructure, why don´t you take action to ensure that there
are more people that can work on it? Why are people that would like to help
out with buildd infrastructure declined as happened lately?

>  So we're left
> with having well respected people doing the work.  So, contribute some
> work, gain respect, and help fix the situation.

How can I help to fix situation when I´m not allowed to? Or even don´t get
the information which might be needed to help? 
Oh, you see the problem? Great that you´re confirming my complaint again. 

>  But with complaints
> like these, people will just start ignoring you.

And with answers like yours, you are forcing people willing to help to leave
the project. Will that help at all? I doubt. 

-- 
Ciao...              // 
      Ingo         \X/