[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Ignoring the truth or Hiding problems? (was: Are mails sent to xxxx <at> buildd.debian.org sent to /dev/null ?)

On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 09:42:00AM -0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 05, 2005 8:42 AM, Ingo Juergensmann
> <ij@2005.bluespice.org> wrote:
> > Regarding James Troup...
> [...]
> > I still believe that it would be better for the project when he would
> > retire from
> > some of his many positions, because he's too loaded with them.
> I'm assuming you haven't spotted the recent announcement that he now has
> assistance with much of the day-to-day work of one of those positions?
> (iirc, the one you're most fond of complaining about).

Of course I have. 
And of course that's an important improvement, but not a real solution for
the problem, IMHO. 

> [fwiw, if I understand correctly, the person in question was appointed after
> having spent considerable time contributing to the NM process and asking
> "can I help lighten your workload?", as opposed to "I don't think you're
> doing a good enough job, let me do it"].

To cite Joey: "Go and read the archives" - or to say it clearly: over a year
ago I (and others) asked, too, how the workload can be lightened on him. No
answers, no solutions. There was a long why from "hey, how can we or someone
else help you with your work?" to "this guy is overloaded with work and
should retire from that position". 

When Joerg Jaspert is already doing the dirty daily work, why does James
still needs in place then? (Except he just stays in that position for a
transitional period until Joerg is taking over that task and job completely.
I would recommend that transitional period for other positions as well.)
And I would welcome it when in 2-3 years another person would be introduced
into that position, first as a helping hand and than to replace Joerg after
a transitional period, too...

Ciao...              // 
      Ingo         \X/

Please note that year 2005 has come to an end and 
the year 2005 is now  -  even in my mail address!

Reply to: