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

Re: Questions for the DPL candidates



On Tuesday 15 March 2005 02:50, Anthony Towns wrote:
> cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> >>That's why it's posted on the lists now -- it never too late to get
> >>input into something in Debian; even after we've committed to
> >> something, we can almost always change our minds.
> >
> > er, saying "we've committed to this" really comes across as a 'fait a
> > compli' to a lot of people.
>
> Any "proposal" made by all the people who'll have to implement it is
> going to come across as a fait accompli, no matter how you phrase it.
> And, to some extent, that's exactly the right reaction.

 from the discussion going on in this thread I gathered that neither the 
porters, nor the security team, nor the kernel team was present in 
Vancouver, I would definately class them as part of "people who'll have to 
implement this"

> But, I mean, take the above -- I didn't say we'd committed to this; I
> said that if we had, it could *still* be changed -- yet your instinct
> was to take the opposite implication out of it.

right, as other people have mentioned, this proposal was phrased in pretty 
much the worst way possible, that does not help getting the right reaction

> > again I'm missing why's here, it may be obvious to members of the
> > release team, but it's not obvious to me (nor it would seem a lot of
> > other people on the list), and an "I think" does not tell me anything.
>
> There're a range of reasons, most of which probably won't be obvious to
> everyone 'til after the fact. 
which is why I would expect whoever makes the proposal to explain the 
reasons.

> Having more flexibility to bend the release requirements, and 
> being able to choose to focus porting efforts on a stable target instead
> of a moving one are useful features for some ports, though, I think. 
doesn't the Vancouver proposal say that tier-2 architectures would be based 
on unstable? I'd hardly call that a stable target. As proposed elsewhere in 
the thread testing would be better if that's the goal.

> >  if you want a technical discussion intead of a political one it helps
> > to
>
> ...not have it on a Debian mailing list. :-/
ok, while you do have a point (to some extend), explaining things would at 
least cut down on the peripheral stuff considerably.

-- 
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
  
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
    format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)

Attachment: pgpbIMvXarRd9.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: