Re: Suggestion: Time limit for NM process
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 02:04:14PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 01:48:37PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > Yes, but that's not only true for the ML, but mostly for the whole project
> > as well. If you come up with ideas, those will be simply put down with "not
> > possible", "this won't work" or even "you're an idiot". I already gave up to
> > make public proposals on Debian MLs, because this is wasted time in most
> > cases. Some people are replying in private mails that they'd welcome those
> > ideas to get implemented, but those won't change anything.
> Rule #1 of FLOSS: If you like to see something change/being done,
> implement it yourself.
> Show that your code/implementation works by running it in parallel to
> the current stuff (if available) and then submit it.
So, your recommendation is to implement a parallel NM process to the
existing one and prove that it is better? I doubt that it would make *any*
sense when the DAMs won't accept the outcome of that process and this is
*very* unlikely. :)
> I don't see how this side-issue is connected to the discussion of the NM
> process, maybe you could take it to -project?
It's related to proposals of improving the NM process. When proposed
improvments are put done here, why take it to -project? To get them put down
there as well? Makes no sense to me.
BTW: how's the cron issue going on hurd-i386? Is it already fixed on your
buildd? ;)
--
Ciao... // Fon: 0381-2744150
Ingo \X/ SIP: 2744150@sipgate.de
gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij/public_key.asc
Reply to: