buildd administration [was Re: StrongARM tactics]
Le jeudi 08 décembre 2005 à 02:03 -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > Which translates here to:
> > 1) Buildd admin should be people interested in supporting the port.
> > 2) People that are going to support the port must get the responsibility.
> Which is great as a statement of principle, but it doesn't seem to offer
> much as a practical recommendation; you don't get to be a buildd maintainer
> by telling the current folks "you aren't taking the right amount of pleasure
> in this -- better let me do it", you get there by working with the current
> folks and building a relationship with them and showing that you know what
> you're doing. Sorry, with a project that's a thousand strong, if they *do*
> care about the task, not too many people are going to turn it over to
> someone they don't know without first assuring themselves that they can
> handle it; and note that I never suggested the current buildd maintainers
> don't *care* about the ports they're helping with, they just don't have
> unlimited amounts of time to spend on single-handedly ensuring that ports
> keep up.
As a result, no one can help with buildd maintenance as the current
buildd admins won't let anyone help them, however overloaded they can
be. They refuse to delegate any part of their powers because people
aren't skilled enough, and people aren't skilled enough because they
aren't allowed to help.
I started my implication in the project four years ago. For four years,
there have been problems with keyring maintenance and buildd
administration. For four years, people responsible for these tasks have
refused help on these matters. For four years, everything that was
suggested on these topics haven't lead to any result, because these same
people have simply ignored the suggestions. Can someone tell me when
this nightmare is going to end?
.''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\
: :' : email@example.com
`. `' firstname.lastname@example.org
`- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom