Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 02:10:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> And in this particular case, there simply isn't a problem: the buildds
> are working fine.
(Yes, as in your other mail, that's only a statement, no proof of thet
statement. But why should I try to argue, when you don't do this as well?
Would be wasted time....)
> > 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.
When you would start to argue instead of just making statement, that might
change. It's up to you.
> > 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.
Just another statement, no proof of it.
> > > 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.
Would be nice. But you already disagreed on expelling James from the
> > > 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.
So you are telling other people to do harm to the project? Other way to
interpret above is: you're telling people bullshit.
I really do think instead, that you're just confused by trying to escape
your argumentation sometimes.
> > 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.
And your alternative "Do whatever James wants" is a viable policy? D'oh!