Re: The unofficial buildd effort and its shutdown - my POV
Ingo Juergensmann <ij@2004.bluespice.org> writes:
> True, there's no formal process for people like me, although I proposed some
> ideas for something like that some time ago, but that was put down as any
> other idea, most likely by the same people that are now yelling loudly about
> trust. It was put down for reasons like "That's nonsense! That can't be
> done. Shut up, moron! If you want, become a DD!"
So... I'm a little confused. What do you mean "there's no formal
process for people like me"? The NM process certainly allows for
things other than package maintenance. What about you is not covered
by the existing process?
> Yes, and right now it seems as if the unofficials buildds are being not
> accepted. I don't want to have stress because I'm not trusted as some people
> thing, so I stopped the buildds (actually they had network problems and were
> offline at that time and I just didn't start the daemon again ;)
It sounds like you stopped the buildd's because you chose to, not
because you were told to. You seemed to me to take a few people's
discussion as determinative. I have no particular opinion about the
substance of the matter, but your action seemed premature to me.
> Well, in the end they *do* saying a lot as well ;), but when you followed
> the discussions you'll have noticed that's almost always the same DDs who
> are saying something "you're an idiot! you're no DD, you have no say!" and
> such.
Who said you were an idiot in this discussion? I don't recall
anything of the kind going on. People thought that a DD shouldn't
sign binary uploads that he wasn't himself responsible for building,
that's all. Where were you called an idiot?
> Even more unfortunately those people who do their work and appreciate mine
> are quite quiet. I know many people (DDs as well non-DDs) who agree with my
> POV, but don't say this in the public. This gives the impression that I'm
> just a single person with obscure opinions, a troublemaker.
Where in any of this were you told that being a DD or not made your
opinions more or less valuable? I don't recall anything of the kind.
> Anyway, all these bad minded discussions are just another reason why I'm
> tired and frustrated. Instead of discussing possible solutions, there's too
> often just a flamewar going on, which make people turn off from Debian - me
> too.
What solution would you propose? The best answer to the problem you
identify is to stop the meta-discussion and instead propose actual
solutions. What do you think would address the security concerns that
people had?
> No. I don't want to become a DD, because I won't package any software
> anyway, but NM process seems to be very much based on this kind of
> stuff.
I don't see anything on the NM page that says you must be a software
packager to be a maintainer, but perhaps I missed this. Can you
explain in more detail? Were you told not to be a maintaner because
you didn't want to package, or what?
> No, I can't apply as NM, because I will end up as Goswin did for sure. James
> doesn't like me, so I never will have to succeed in NM process anyway. This
> is my impression of how things go in Debian, therefore I'll not even try it.
I think this really doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I'm happy to
hear a complaint if you tried and were rejected for illegitimate
reasons. But to say "I never tried because I knew I would be
rejected" doesn't carry much weight. We don't even have your
say-soomas
to go on, because you might be wrong about whether you'd be rejected.
What exactly do you want?
> Not quite. I find it quite annoying and useless to start such a discussion
> about people (like me) that are doing exactly the same work for years and
> suddenly this work seems wrong.
I didn't see anyone tell you to stop doing it. I see someone being
worried about a similar kind of work; I see people discussing an
issue. But nobody told you "don't do this"--moreover, nobody could
have! You could ignore them; nothing stops you from building anything
you like. At best, Debian could tell a developer to stop signing the
packages, but I don't think that happened either.
T
Reply to: