[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: *UNAPPROVED* dpkg nmu

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:28:46 +0000, Martin Michlmayr <- Debian Project
Leader <leader@debian.org>> said:  
> Just a note about the "backdoor meeting" which was organized by me.
> Wichert Akkerman was invited to a conference in Spain and I thought
> this would be a good opportunity to discuss dpkg - both multi-arch
> support as well as how more volunteers can get involved in dpkg as
> its development has been very stale in the last few months.  Since
> the meeting was arranged with Wichert, this is clearly not a
> "backdoor meeting" or anything hidden; you were not invited because
> the meeting was in Europe and airfare would have been quite
> expensive for Debian to pay.

	While this might be a reason for not inviting people on
 Debian's expense, it is not a reason for not letting them know of the
 meeting (Hey, some of us may have wanted a european vacation on our
 own. You do not know). And there is no reason why the meeting could
 not have been announced on  d-d-a, or d-d, and people could have
 contributed ideas to be discussed.

	Indeed, from ESR's rant on /., it would seem that you would
 _want_ user concerns to be addressed -- it would certainly help
 prioritize bugs and determine where dpkg was heading.

	And common courtesy would indicate that _all_ maintainers were
 apprised of the fact *well* before the meeting took place.

> Unfortunately, the day before the conference, Wichert announced that
> he could not come because of work related reasons.  Having invited
> some people for the dpkg meeting already, we suggested a productive
> compromise: Wichert would write down his thoughts about dpkg, and

	And why couldn't this so called productive compromise not been
 reached with Adam as well? Why could *HE* not have penned _his_
 thoughts and concerns for people to pay attention to?  Why is this
 courtesy only extended to one of the developers of dpkg, and not the
 other (more activce) one?

> we'd discuss them and write a summary.  The summary was posted to
> you in private mail -

	And not only was the meeting not announced, even the results
	are held in private. If this is not a back door meeting, I
	don't know what is.

> I'd like to see it posted to the -dpkg list for public discussion,
> but first Wichert has to post his summary.

	Oh. Only wichert gets to post summaries, not the "other" dpkg

	Why could the NMU not have been held back until these super
 sekrit summaries and results were public-ally posted?

> I asked him in private mail to do so, but it has not happened yet.
> Once Wichert forwards his message, Scott will post the summary from
> the meeting.

	Oh, _after_ the surprise NMU. Wonderful

> In any case, there was nothing secret about this meeting as you seem
> to suggest.  -- Martin Michlmayr leader@debian.org

	I am, unfortunately, drawn to a different conclusion.

Don't look now, but there is a multi-legged creature on your shoulder.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: