Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
On Sunday 22 Feb 2004 2:45 am, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Because I have really awful bandwidth and find it difficult to review
> > even moderately sized packages (getting better bandwidth involves moving
> > house).
>
> Amazing. If you're not going to do the work, why do you think your opinion
> matters at all? If the people who are doing the work want your opinion, I'm
> sure they'll ask for it.
What's amazing? Did you actually read what I wrote?
My opinion may not matter to you or any other person in the project, but I
don't think your attitude is constructive. Having a pop at people for being
non-DDs or not doing "the work" from your position seems to me indicative of
the attitude of a small number of people in this project who see their
position as a stick to beat people with rather than a privilege.
I presented my opinion in an attempt to engage in a reasoned discussion. I
don't really see what's so wrong with that.
> Working out who to accept and reject is an obviously controversial task,
> it's also one Debian and our users rely on rather heavily considering the
> damage that could be done if we do this wrong. As such, it's reasonable
> and appropriate to expect that anyone who wants to suggest changes or
> set new policies demonstrate a significantly higher level of competence
> and trustworthyness than your average developer. The most obvious way to
Your opinion of the average developer is telling.
> demonstrate the appropriate level of both those attributes is to work on
> n-m as an AM. Personally, I think the fact that you haven't done this, and
> are evidently unwilling to do this, means your opinions aren't worth much.
I strongly disagree. Opinions should be evaluated on merit, not on who the
speaker may be. That is prejudice, and small-minded attitudes like that mean
that good ideas are dismissed for the wrong reasons. Maybe good developers
are also rejected for the wrong reasons. I don't think we should base
decisions on reputation rather than reasoned arguments.
Reply to: