Re: Unofficial buildd network has been shut down
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:41:15PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > As for my m68k system, as far as I can tell since James never answered
> > me directly, it was rejected because James thought with my DD
> > rejection coming up I would withdraw the system. Allowing it in
> > would be wasted work. Go figure.
> As I understood it, James refused it because he thought you could go mad
> and angry once the DD rejection would be reality. You certainly would
> have the skills to insert trojan binaries into an official package;
Erm, when this is a reason to reject, than nearly all DDs should be expelled
because they have those skills as well. So, having the skills should not be
a reason for rejection but for acception.
> whether you would indeed do this is a different matter, and although I
> don't think it's likely that you would've done so, I do think James'
> refusal, if it was on those grounds, was justified.
As I read the rejection mail, James based his reasons on the grounds of the
EagleLinux story. Well, as I mentioned several times before, you can't
accuse Goswin for the faults of the CEO of Eagle Computers. *Everyone* who
had some insight behind the scenes of that times in that area (Eagle
Computer and their behaviour) should have been able to tell so. Therefore
the rejection was based on false grounds.
> > If it were personal and Debian had reasons not to trust me that would
> > be OK (well, not for me but in general) but it's not. Its worse. DDs
> > are not allowed to think for themself and decide whom and what systems
> > to trust. That was the message conveyed in the thread and on irc. Its
> > not the place of a DD to decide for all of Debian whom to trust.
> Agreed.
> However, the issue is not that we don't trust people who are not Debian
> Developers; the issue is that we can't trust everyone on this planet,
> and that we need to draw a line /somewhere/. That line needs to have
> some kind of objectivity to it. No, the whether someone has the
> Developer status isn't fully objective either; but it's the best we've
> got.
Hmmpf... maybe the project should clarify first if DD status is a base for
trust or not. Some say it's just a status and has nothing to do with trust,
others say it's the basic ground for trust and all the project has, so
non-DDs are not that trustworthy in general.
Again and again I stumble across inconsistencies in Debian that prevent me
from doing my work for the project. On one day I've been told that "step in,
do the work" is the right way to help debian, the other day it's "you're no
DD, you've no say, your work is not trustworthy". And all the time many DDs
are showing the habit to non-DDs and users that DDs are first class humans
and all others (non-DDs and users) are next irrelevant and second class.
I'm really tired of all that arrogance and snootiness.
If the project don't like contributional work of non-DDs say it clear and
loud. Otherwise put on some clear rules *now*. This perpetual seesaw really
sucks!
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
Reply to: