On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 07:24:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > An excellent example of this is the publication of the NEW queue. Now > that everyone can see the NEW queue, I don't see any of the big public > criticism about slow processing. Well, that's not very interesting, because the processing isn't slow anymore which could well be the cause. Fortunately we can differentiate those two explanations, because there was a time when the NEW queue was visible and processing remained slow, between 17th Feb 2005 [0] and 18th March 2005 [1] or so. If transparency were the fix, then there shouldn't've been any "big public criticism about slow processing" in that time. Unfortunately for that theory, there was, see [2]. Really, that theory was screwed from the beginning, since that information has *always* been available, although not in as nice a form as it currently is. That sort of information is helpful to tell you when there is a problem, but that's only the first step. ATM, the corresponding thing would be to (gosh!) setup a webpage tracking whatever issue you don't think is receiving enough attention, so people can see if it is actually a problem. The way to then go about solving it is *politely* working *with* the people who're currently involved. Okay, I guess I've made that point enough for this round. See y'all again next month! What are we up for next anyway? N-M? Cheers, aj [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/02/msg00795.html [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/03/msg00142.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/03/msg00291.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature