Re: The unofficial buildd effort and its shutdown - my POV
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 09:03:18AM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> >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 you can do other things later, but its focussed on packaging and
> maintaing packages.
Right....
> >>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?
> Thats not right, there are currently two NM processes,
> first the classic NM process which is focussed on packaging
> and maintaining packages, here you have to get a package
> into the archive (I have several mails that prove that), to get
> maintainer. On the other side there is a process for documentation
> maintainers, as I currently know there is only of that maintainer existing
> yet. This process is focussed on getting things documented. (XML, SGML,
> docbook stuff). But there is no process that reflect the things a buildd
> maintainer does.
And neither packaging nor documentation is what I'm contributing, so I don't
feel that NM process is something for me.
> Maybe we should create a process especially for people we have to trust
> for several reasons, that don't wan't to get maintainers.
> (Some kind of signation or advocate process).
> Ingo for examples maintains buildds since I remember and I heard never any
> complaints how (technically) they are maintained, so lets trust him.
> I think every m68k user uses packages that are built on his buildd, this
> was good for several years and now its bad ? Thats a little bit stupid.
Yes, very stupid and I'm somewhat upset about this sudden turn.
> >>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?
> I think he wants some official statement that he could continue his
> work, without a new moron that beginns to complain about new things next week.
Yep, this is correct as well. It's basically the same as the
Troup-buildd-trust-security-police-passwd-sharing-thingie.
I basically had never problems in agreeing to James new policy, but I wanted
a security for me that this kind of "first change policy, tell people later
and blame them" wouldn't happen again. And communication is the basic ground
to avoid this kind of misunderstandings. He neglected my wish to avoid
future problems.
It's the same now for the buildd in general. I was good enough for several
years and suddenly I'm not anymore?
So, get the things cleared out and come back. It's not about that I don't
want to contribute anymore, it's about that I don't want to contribute under
*these* circumstances. I think, this should be understandable...
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
Reply to: