Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 01:46:57PM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Geez, dude, learn to trim.
> > #4 Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
> > Is it just a pretext for non-free programs inclusion? I'm wondering,
> > by reading so many times that only DD opinions "count for much".
> Have you heard of "special interests"? It's the term used when a few
> noisy people get the ear of some politicians and try to convince them
> to do things that benefit them, instead of people in general. If that
> doesn't happen, they complain loudly, and tell everyone that the will
> of the people is being ignored.
Then tell us what is wrong in wanting the buildds to run smoothly, get
packages build faster and get packages into sarge in the time needed.
If you can show that thats not in the users general intrest I will
> You can't please everyone. Even if you do what's best for everyone, some
> of them will be unhappy because they wanted something different. You
> can please the vast majority of people, but some of the minority will
> complain very loudly. On the other hand, you can often please all the
> people who complain loudest without worrying about pleasing the majority.
> My conclusion is that in order to achieve our goals of supporting our
> users and the free software community, we can't give too much credence
> to people just because they complain a lot. One of the ways in which we
You shouldn't give any credence to any person but to the thing they
> do that is to say "it doesn't matter how much anyone complains; it's the
> maintainers decision. if you don't like that, convince them otherwise,
The don't communicate, no dialog, no discussion, no convincing
> prepare a patch, work around the problem, use a different program,
prepare a patch -> setup a build [check]
work around the problem -> manually queue and sign packages [check]
use a different program -> get someone else in charge [this thread]
Hmm, seems we are pretty much following your directions.
> or use a different distribution".
> > The whole point is way too much confusing. Someone wrote "People who
> > aren't developers have less experience working with Debian almost by
> > definition". What does experience working with Debian mean? Working
> > with the operating system Debian or with the Debian community?
> Working within the Debian project. Knowing what tools and resources
> are available, knowing what they need to do and what people expect,
> and knowing what tradeoffs that involves.
We know there are more resources (hardware and people) available than
are being used. Thats the complaint.
> > But what annoys me more in this discussion is the tone of the
> > messages.
> > Can't you keep off the discussion personal attacks? Can't you just
> > stick to facts and avoid any comments based your very own opinions
> > about others persons involved knowledge?
> No, because my goal isn't to justify James and Ryan's actions --
> I don't believe they need any justification. My goal is to try to get
> this community to stop ceaselessly attacking the people it relies on.
And thats where you are just plain wrong. Your just ignoring the
contents of the complain and are looking at the persons behind the
complaint. Thats what makes people thing about an elite DD group and
> > If you cannot, you do not deserve a position when you can decide who
> > should be able to contribute or not.
> Really? Where were you when Chris Cheney wrote "the buildds FUCKING
> SUCK! The buildd admins must be incompetent or on crack" ? Have you been
> telling Chris that he shouldn't be involved in this thread because he
> doesn't deserve to be able to decide who should contribute when because
> he hasn't avoided personal attacks?
Maybe he was right at that time, maybe not. Maybe he learned. People
change. Lets give him the benefit of doubt and read what he has to say
and not primarily who he is.
> > You are proving that "the people
> > who" should "do the judging are" not necessarily "the ones in charge
> > of the area", because technical knowledge in no way means management
> > capabilities.
> If you make the right decision, and are independently judged to have made
> the right decision, but are attacked for it nevertheless, who is at fault?
> You, for not fully persuading your attacker in advance that you're utterly
> blameless; or your attacker for making an issue out of something they don't
> actually understand?
The attacker for not bending to the independent judge.
> If that happens repeatedly over an extended period, is it really fair to
> say that the attackers don't have any responsibility to calmly ensure
> that the wrong thing has been done before launching new attacks? Does
> anyone else not have a responsibility to ensure that people consistently
> making the right decisions aren't consistently attacked for doing so?
So how often has Nathanael iresponsibly attacked someone in Debian?
Because thats what you are implying.
> There isn't any conflict of power here.
> Seriously, there's none. I defy you to find any.
> The problem that does exist is that people feel it's appropriate to make
> attacks like Nathanael did through this mailing list. What options are
> there, given that's the case? Ignore it and have discussions elsewhere?
> But doesn't that just make it less likely that the project will
> communicate well, and that there'll be more such threads later rendering
> this list and others even less useful? Politely reply and do everything
> possible to make Nathanael happy? Won't that likewise just encourage more
> people to make similar complaints as they figure that's the only way to
> get anything done? The only response I can think of that has any hope
> of a good outcome is strongly opposing the existance of such threads,
> and recommending alternatives, which is what I've done.
> Again: if a developer thinks Ryan or James has made the wrong decision,
> then they can present the case of why that should be overruled to the
> technical ctte. If a non-developer can't convince a developer to do that
> for them, then they should be ignored. If the tech ctte can't be convinced
> that the alternative decision needed to be made, then there's no cause to
> even consider withdrawing the delegation. Flaming people on -devel should
> certainly not be the first port of call in trying to get a resolution.
Maybe. You should have said so directly instead of starting personal
attacks on the persons involved.