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

Re: Genesis of the git.d.o/gitlab.d.o confusion

]] Ian Jackson 

> But what you are saying is that they must, right away, pick a fight
> with the administrators and users of the existing services.  They have
> to declare their intent to obsolete it and write out a detailed plan
> on how everyone will have to change.
> I think that this would be very aggressive and harmful behaviour.  You
> can see in this thread the kind of (very measured, under the
> circumstances) responses from people who have qualms about such a
> plan.
> Requiring this requires those who want improvement to (a) enter into a
> political battle (b) make explicit and public their criticisms of
> the existing setups (c) "win" against the now-"enemies" who support
> the existing services.

FWIW, you're the first one (AFAIHS) in this thread to use of adverserial
words like «pick a fight», «enemies», «battle», and so on.  I don't
think that choice of words is helpful to finding a good solution that's
reasonable to everybody.

I'll be talking about official services here.  What people do with their
private experiments in the debian.net namespace is up to them.

The requirement is that if your new project largely duplicate some
existing project, you talk to the folks running the existing project,
work out delineations and at a minimum, try to work together.  If you
can't make anything work, come back, make a reasonable case for why we
still want it despite the duplication in effort.

I don't think this is a particularly unreasonable bar.  If you're
setting up a new service, that hopefully adds some unique value to the
project, it's not just an intersection of three existing projects.

Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Reply to: