On Monday 19 July 2004 16.24, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 09:12, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
> wrote: [snip
>
> > (No, I'm not suggesting that people in roles should be 'legally'
> > required to do this. But they should perhaps be encouraged -
> > perhaps by the DPL? I'm sure he notices when overly long
> > discussions are caused in part by people not knowing some things?)
>
> What long [...] discussion are we talking about?
I have the impression that quite a lot of the AMD64 (what else?)
discussions could have been avoided by a short message like 'AMD64 is
in progress, issues currently are X, Y, Z, ETA is currently dadada,
stay tuned for further news' in a place most people are reading it.
I also have the impression that I am not the only one with this
impression.
There were and are other topics that have generated threads of 300+
postings seemingly without anything much happening. The NM process was
one of these (seems not a problem now). Some licensing issues were
discussed in this way. Spam on the lists is another such topic. The
'editorial changes GR' discussion apparently contained some fairly
important statements hidden in a very long thread which some people
missed.
After some time, somebody starts pointing fingers at the RM, the
ftpmasters, the DAM, the listmasters, ... - which is usually the time
when the 'and I won't talk to you anymore' type of argument starts. 3
emails later the 'I really consider retiring' emails and blog entries
appear.
I'm an outsider (in NM now, though, so I started ), and not involved in
either AMD64 nor d-i nor X nor {list,release,account} management nor
debian-legal nor you-name-it, so perhaps the discussions I'm referring
to were really on-topic and informed and concise and just required that
many emails because they were that complex. I don't know.
Anyway, I think I said what I wanted to say, so EOT here?
-- vbi
--
Of course I know how to copy disks. Where's the xerox machine?
Attachment:
pgpY8J0jIQkOz.pgp
Description: signature