Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 05:08:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 08:36:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I think it is perfectly reasonable for them to make their case on
> > debian-devel. What is it about setting out the complaint here that
> > offends you so much?
> The charter for debian-devel is technical discussion about Debian
> development. This isn't technical discussion, it's a demand that either
> a delegate reverse a decision, or the DPL remove them. That's off-topic,
> and utterly inappropriate from a non-developer; it would be on-topic for
> the technical ctte if it was brought up by a developer (which Nathanael,
> Ingo and Goswin aren't), and that developer was actually significantly
> affected by the lack of buildds (which ttbomk, no one actually is --
> were this a bug, it'd be "wishlist", for it to be appropriate to involve
> the tech ctte it should be at least "important").
Oh, that's sound like fun...
You say that this issue should be brought up to the ctte, but that we (the
three persons you're mentioning) basically can't do that because we're not a
developer and therefore that would be inappropriate.
> It's an ill-advised complaint because the right way for decisions to
> be made is to have the person who has to clean up after them making
Even more fun....
> For buildds that's James and Ryan; and they've been doing that
> very well for years now.
Apparently that isn't anymore the case.
> But what's particularly offensive about it, is that there have been
> idiotic flamewars like this against James approximately every couple
> of weeks for the past few years.
It should make you think about it, when this happens regularly.
Do you ever thought of the fact, that there might be a reason for all those
"idiotic flamewars". Why do you use these word anyway? When other people use
the word "idiot(ic)" you judge the whole thread as offensive and
unnecessary, but use those kinds of words by yourself to get rude and
> *None* of them have been necessary
> or productive, and if that's the reward for the level of contributions
> James has offered the project, then it's clear that the project doesn't
> want responsible committed people to be a part of it.
Maybe they're just not productive because some[TM] people block the whole
process from being productive? Would be worth a though, eh? ;)
> > Let's get the problems out in the open so they can be identified and
> > fixed.
> Flamewars on this list correlate very poorly with actual problems
> facing Debian.
So, it would be better to hide problems from the public by carrying it to
Can you please enlighten me *who* is in the ctte?