[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 Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 05:10:25PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> AJ Towns wrote:
> > The problem that does exist is that people feel it's appropriate to make
> > attacks like Nathanael did through this mailing list.
> And why, precisely, is this a problem?  If I'd been wrong about the existence 
> of the problem, there would not be a dozen people popping up to corroborate 
> my complaint.  

Uh, no, that's not the case. On any issue people can reasonably disagree,
you'll usually be able to find some support for whichever side you
take. That's what happens when you have a large project.

And in this particular case, there simply isn't a problem: the buildds
are working fine.

> In actual fact, I was right.  

But, of course, you're not going to listen to anyone else, so there's not
much point communicating with you anyway. So whatever.

> I have been voicing the complaints of others -- in some cases others who 
> don't want to be "blacklisted" for complaining.  

Again, the problem isn't that you're "complaining". There are plenty of
ways to complain other than how you've chosen to do so, some of which are
actually admirable and productive.

> > The only response I can think of that has any hope
> > of a good outcome is strongly opposing the existance of such threads,
> Which you've done, but it's (a) hopeless, (b) creates more flames, (c) 
> probably doesn't help any outcome, and (d) you're not doing it very 
> convincingly.


Well, I guess the other option is to start closing the project to people
who aren't willing to take up issues in a friendly and cooperative manner.

> > and recommending alternatives,
> Yeah, but the only alternatives you've recommended are:
> * shut up and do nothing (which of course has no effect)
> * politely make polite requests (and the whole line of complaint is related to 
> the fact that this often results in nothing being done)

Well, no. I've suggested that people who think this is a problem and are
developers setup their own buildds without Ryan's assistance. Personally,
I think that'll be a waste of their time, and I'm mildly concerned that
it might cause more breakage than what we currently have, but that's
the outlet we have for all cases of disagreement: do the work yourself
and stop complaining.

> Someone *else* suggested contacting the DPL directly, which is at least a 
> reasonable alternative.

The DPL's already given you an answer on this issue. Oddly enough you
don't seem particularly satisfied. But given it didn't follow the policy
of "Do whatever Nathanael wants", I guess that's not surprising.

> > which is what I've done.
> Suggest a real alternative, and perhaps you'll get further.

Considering I've already done so, that doesn't seem likely.


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: