Re: StrongARM tactics
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 01:14:00AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Saying "that's the buildd admin's job" about tasks that don't *need* to be
> done by the buildd admin is a pretty effective way of encouraging the
> problems that the Vancouver proposal sought to address, where two or three
> people end up carrying all the ports, and all their time is eaten up by
> maintaining the buildds and giving back failed packages with no time for
> following through on the permanent failures (which, even though they
> sometimes represent a minority of Maybe-Failed packages usually account for
> a majority of the actual work needing done).
This go against the two basic rules for a volunteer organisation.
1) Volunteers doing the job should be people interested in doing it.
2) Responsibility should go to people that are going to do the job.
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.
Making "buildd admin" a purely administrative task while porters are
not even trusted to do a binary upload is not going to work because you
will never find volunteers accepting to work under theses terms.
If the Vancouver proposal is the constatation that the old model did not
work the solution is to change the model, not to expect that people will
suddenly accept it. Unless you are just looking at an excuse to remove
ports, obviously. Fortunately there are no external organisations forcing
the old model upon us, so there is no reason not to change it.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Whoever decided to make elvis the default editor on master is not color-blind.
Reply to: