Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 10:33:03AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > But what's particularly offensive about it, is that there have been
> > > idiotic flamewars like this against James approximately every couple
> > > of weeks for the past few years.
> > It should make you think about it, when this happens regularly.
> > Do you ever thought of the fact, that there might be a reason for all those
> > "idiotic flamewars".
>
> Of course there's a reason for it. If there weren't it wouldn't
> happen. The question is what we want to do about it. One option is
> to say "Yup, attacking the people who do lots of work is great; those
> guys suck and never do enough. They should do more, or get lost.", and
> that seems to me to be what the project is leaning towards. Personally,
> I find that revolting.
No, what is said is they do so much for debian that they don't have
enough time. Some work should be delegated so the work is done more
smoothly. Their valuable time should be freed up for important tasks
and not wasted on trivial ones which they can't (due to the day only
having 24h best guess) perform as well as those offering assistance
could do.
At least thats the general drift that should be conveied in this "flame
war".
And, although I'm a bit scetchy on what, Ingo seem to have worked out
some arangement with Martin to improve the lines of communication.
Maybe the "flame war" wasn't called for but yet again it worked, the
only thing that seems to work. Or the only thing that becomes public
knowledge. If you have better methods you need to get the word out
about them it seems.
> > Why do you use these word anyway? When other people use
> > the word "idiot(ic)" you judge the whole thread as offensive and
> > unnecessary, but use those kinds of words by yourself to get rude and
> > offensive.
>
> No, the thread's unnecessary because there isn't any signficant problem to
> be solved, and it's offensive and counterproductive because it attacks
> people who've volunteered their time and skill and been incredibly
> valuable to the project.
>
> Generally, I think being frank about what you think -- like saying
> someone's acting like an idiot when you think they are -- is a good thing
> in technical discussions. I doubt you'll find anywhere that I've said
> otherwise. But when it crosses the line to constant complaints about
> people and suggestions that the project would be better off without
> their efforts, that's unacceptable, to my mind.
If someone thats not communicating is replaced by someone that does
and does the same work just as well Debian is better off. That it
would also improve the other jobs taken by the partially replaced
persons is an extra bonus on top.
Sorry, but if you say improving something would not benefit the
project you mind must be in knots.
> > > > Let's get the problems out in the open so they can be identified and
> > > > fixed.
> > > Flamewars on this list correlate very poorly with actual problems
> > > facing Debian.
> > So, it would be better to hide problems from the public by carrying it to
> > the ctte.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/
>
> > Can you please enlighten me *who* is in the ctte?
>
> http://www.debian.org/intro/organization
>
> One of the problems with talking to non-developers about things like
> this is they simply don't have a complete understanding about how Debian
> works and their suggestions, like yours above, are flawed because of this.
>
> Having people who don't know what they're talking about stirring up
> trouble is not the way we should be working.
>
> Cheers,
> aj
So we are back to personal attacks again.
Ah, lets see. Ingo (who is deeply involved in the buildd system) and
Nathanael (who is deeply involved in the RM tasks and a lot more of
Debian aparently) don't have a clue about Debian since they are not
DDs.
Great reasoning.
Could you come back down, count to ten, let blood flow through your
brain, become clam please. And then think about your arguments.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: