Re: Re: Re: Google Summer of Code 2010 Debian Report
Quoting Filipus Klutiero (chealer@gmail.com):
> I must still thank you for sending a report. My first reaction was
> "Finally", I am just disappointed by the content.
I am disappointed by your followup and insistance.
To make it clear (sorry readers, you'll need a translation tool but I
need to use the words I want to use and not my usual approximative English),
let's do this in my native language which you do read as well as Arthur:
Je suis extrêmement en colère, Philippe, et c'est rare. Je trouve tes
messages dans ce fil de discussion totalement déplacés . Tu voudrais
démotiver un de nos meilleurs contributeurs que tu ne t'y prendrais
pas mieux.
I see you're in anger and reject some of my comments. I'm sorry, I can't
do much, but to promise I'll take note of your comments if you explain
exactly what maddens you.
It seems this is basically what angers you: "I almost feel ashamed to
see how modest the results have been so far"
Don't forget I immediately followed that by: "Note that I have not
extensively monitored the SoC. The results may be greater than I
imagine, but this is worryingly non-obvious."
Or, en plusieurs années de GSOC, je ne t'ai jamais vu participer à
celui-ci. J'espère donc qu'Arthur notamment saura faire la part des
choses et laisser tes commentaires à la place qu'ils n'auraient jamais
du quitter.
I did participate in the Debian SoC, and offered myself to take a
prominent role more than once. Unfortunately things outside my control
prevented me to enroll.
Je n'aime pas être en colère en public, mais je pense que là tu as
dépassé les bornes. Le travail du GSOC cette année a été un des plus
productifs pour Debian et Arthur a pris grand soin de
tenir le projet au courant. Il s'est notamment dépensé sans compter
son temps pour que les étudiants participent à Debconf et utilisent
cette occasion unique de parler de leur travaux. Et....ceux qui
étaient là à DC10....le savent très bien.
I was not at DebConf, and only watched a few talks. So it's possible I
just missed something. I don't know what happened at DebConf, but if you
say Arthur put a lot of effort in promoting the SoC results, I guess
there was too much emphasis on DebConf, and too little done outside.
Keep in mind most Debian contributors don't attend DebConf.
Aller suggérer un manque de transparence ou de la négligence est
insultant.
I'll rewind and explain how I came to intervene in a concise way:
For several years, I consider the SoC management poor, and I've given
signs that more transparency would be welcome at times. But this is a
volunteer project, so we can't complain for a lack of transparency, we
should be happy some work is done in the first place, right? Well,
Google does give 5000 USD for management, so this is not entirely true,
but given the amount, let's ignore.
What does make me fairly angry is to read a "Google Summer of Code 2010
Debian Report", with some elementary issues, calling our 2010 GSoC the
fourth when it was the fifth and announcing reports on 8 successful
projects but only presenting 7. No link in the mail explains what
happened to the 2 unsuccessful projects. Most importantly, even in the 7
projects described, most don't have a single word on the results, but
rather impressions on DebConf 2010 which are quite offtopic on d-d-a.
And all that proeminently sent to d-d-a, with a slightly optimistic tone
that seems to send the project the message "We're doing fine!".
Then, when 2 readers write very nice mails pointing out one of these
issues, what do I see in the answer?
don't worry :)
That makes me angry. I wouldn't care about transparency if I was seeing
GSoC results, but as I said, I'm not satisfied by the little I see, so I
do not have enough trust to accept being just told to not worry. If your
team has neither good performance nor transparency, at least don't act
as if things were fine.
If I'm suggesting a lack of transparency or negligence, please don't
take this as an insult, but as a challenge. Nothing here is personal,
Arthur is not the only one involved in the SoC, and the goal is to make
sure future SoC-s will also be "even" better.
Reply to: