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

Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 10:33:03AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > 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". 

Of course there's a reason for it. If there weren't it wouldn't
happen. The question is what we want to do about it. One option is
to say "Yup, attacking the people who do lots of work is great; those
guys suck and never do enough. They should do more, or get lost.", and
that seems to me to be what the project is leaning towards. Personally,
I find that revolting.

> 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
> offensive. 

No, the thread's unnecessary because there isn't any signficant problem to
be solved, and it's offensive and counterproductive because it attacks
people who've volunteered their time and skill and been incredibly
valuable to the project.

Generally, I think being frank about what you think -- like saying
someone's acting like an idiot when you think they are -- is a good thing
in technical discussions. I doubt you'll find anywhere that I've said
otherwise. But when it crosses the line to constant complaints about
people and suggestions that the project would be better off without
their efforts, that's unacceptable, to my mind.

> > > 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
> the ctte. 


> Can you please enlighten me *who* is in the ctte? 


One of the problems with talking to non-developers about things like
this is they simply don't have a complete understanding about how Debian
works and their suggestions, like yours above, are flawed because of this.

Having people who don't know what they're talking about stirring up
trouble is not the way we should be working.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

             Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
           http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: