Re: Mailing lists
Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 05:52:25PM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> wrote:
> > So, are you really trying to communicate here? Do you really think
> > than Nathaniel and others are spending time to write mails just to be
> > hostile to some DD?
> >
> > All this discussion about how hostile are Nathaniel and friends, how
> > bad it is to question DD choices, it just looks like a way to avoid
> > discussion the real issue raised by Nathaniel and friends: "Re: Debian
> > needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't beingaccepted.". It
> > makes the issue looking even more strange, just like if there was
> > little nasty secret to hide. Why is it so hard to get an official
> > statement about why buildd offers aren't being accepted?
>
> There has been one. Two days after the start of this flamage, the DPL
> has posted a mail that outlined the reasons for the machines not being
> accepted:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200402/msg00463.html
> That's with his DPL hat on ('From: leader@debian.org'), so I guess it
> can't go any more official than that.
I thanked Martin already for it and can only say that that information
solved one big bunch of the thread for now. It doesn't solve the
information flow in general. Martins other suggestion of an mediator
that can talk with James solves the long run. One such person still
needs to be found or volunteer.
As outlined the hardware problems are solved or are being solved. The
people problem still remains though. There is still the single point
of failure with one person having full controll over the arch(s).
Some assistants or coadmins are still needed. That is not limited to
James and Ryan, there are other archs with just one person too.
I realy don't think James and Ryan are inept at running the buildds
they control, quite the contrary. From what is going on I get the
feeling they just don't have the time. With the freeze and sarge
coming up the work is not getting any less.
> Yes, I know the answer has not been accepted by some. As someone who's
> been maintaining a buildd machine for almost 3 years now, however, I'd
> like to say that I understand Ryan's motives for not accepting the
> buildd offer, even if I don't agree with all of them. His mail to me in
> which he declined the offer was short, to the point, communicative, and
> friendly; thus, in my experience, many of the accusations ("they're not
> communicating!", etc) are simply wrong. And yes, both James and Ryan
> seem to be ignoring this thread. Can't blaim them for that.
Can you ask Ryan if its OK to publish the decline mail? From what I
was told about some part of it wasnt well informed and others, like
the diskspace, have since been rectified. I would like to see the
original for comparison to see whats misquoted or just claimed and
whats truth.
Maybe the offer can just be remade with the updated informations and
is now acceptable. Maybe the reasons still apply. I would like to know.
> > So only solution to the problem you can come up with is to ignore the
> > discussion with a killfile? Looks that there is a real problem out
> > there.
>
> If this were a productive discussion, then yes, there would be a
> problem. However, as it is, not only have we got an endless, silly, and
> heated flamewar, it is also highly off-topic here.
Lets get back to productive again then.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: