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

Re: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy

Enrico Zini wrote:

> On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 02:04:20PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > It wasn't the GR itself. It was the fact that these changes to the NM
> > process were actually made. I suppose it is arguable that those changes
> > simply would not have happened without the GR, but that indicates more
> > of a lack of direct motivation within the new maintainer team.  
> > 
> > So, if it required the GR to motivate them, then I suppose it was a
> > necessity and ultimately a good thing, but my point is simply that its
> > better when motivation comes from within; rather than an applied
> > external force.
> I do not see how talking about the NM process or that GR is at all
> relevant in this thread, and please do not consider this message of mine
> an intent to contribute to it in any other way but to clarify a
> misrepresentation of a team I'm a member of.
> From the point of view of Front Desk, motivation has always been there:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/10/msg00005.html
> but a GR was needed to be able to proceed, because the hands of FD were
> rather tied by this other GR: http://www.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_002

Then the core problem is the hand-tying itself, and that is the
consequence of the GR process itself.  Thus, my point remains: GRs are
the wrong way to achieve change; they have long-term and unintended
consequences. Ideally, changes should be adopted based on technical
merit itself; rather than forced.

> Please do not try to provide facts about the motivation or intentions of
> others unless you really know them, otherwise you run into the risk of
> misrepresenting other people, which is bad.

OK, I actually tried to avoid presenting that as a fact, and more as an
interpretation of the situation.  "...if it required the GR to motivate
them..." makes that intent pretty clear I think.  I didn't intend the
word "motivation" to be interpreted as lack of interest or in any kind
of negative connotation, but more in the sense of overcoming some kind
of barrier/inertia; i.e. definition 1 in a google search: "The reason
or reasons one has for acting or behaving in a particular way".

Best wishes,

Reply to: