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

Re: buildd administration [was Re: StrongARM tactics]

I don't know what's wrong but I think there is on principle, which
shouldn't be forgotten. Try to understand first and then to be
understood. I'd like to help, but may be I can't. Read Stephen Covey

2005/12/8, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 11:40:17AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > 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,
> How do you know this is true? (Hint: I know it's not.)
> > and people aren't skilled enough because they aren't allowed to help.
> Er, did you even *read* this thread?  We got on the topic of buildds because
> *someone refused to help diagnose build failures because they consider it the
> buildd admin's job*.  This is a concrete and specific task which needs
> attention, which doesn't require special access in order to work on, and by
> means of which developers can demonstrate their trustworthiness to buildd
> maintainers.  Instead, people are telling me this is the buildd maintainer's
> job, and that no one is going to volunteer to do any porting work unless
> they are given the keys to the buildds in the process.
> The buildd maintainers are stopping people from helping?  Like, WTF?
> > I started my implication in the project four years ago. For four years,
> > there have been problems with keyring maintenance and buildd
> > administration.
> What problems are there today with buildd administration, please?
> --
> Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
> Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
> vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
> iD8DBQFDmB/jKN6ufymYLloRAsn/AKChEi2vi3Kr1GbDEhwZbqVa19kbiACfeZxy
> KAWdD+XhpAEVMfS7G/rfdKU=
> =f1o5

Reply to: