Re: Proposed change to Debian constitution
No disrespect intended Joey, but your credibility is very low wrt
this issue. The reason that Wichert had to make a statement on
this issue months ago is because you dropped the ball for various
reasons. At the time, I stated that if you were tired of dealing
with new-maintainer then you should resign that assignment. So
the fact that Wichert's solution to the problem is to make a
fairly compilcated proposal for the handling of new maintainers
and then apparently handing the ball right back at you for you to
stall for some more months is Wichert's failing.
I am tired of this issue coming up every month or so, with
potential developers pissed they can't join asking what's up,
current developers asking what's up, and the very infrequent
message from you saying `yeah, we're discussing it. We'll have
something for you all soon.' and no word from Wichert at all.
I'm slowly getting tired of Debian being controlled by a handful
of people how apparently do things in half-secret, at a very slow
pace, when others with more time have volunteered to help and
have been turned down. This issue is one of these cases, but not
the only one. Sure you do a lot for the project, I applaud you
for it. But the exclusion of others is tiresome.
Martin Schulze wrote:
> Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > Goswin Brederlow <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > What are the reasons for ever not letting new maintainers in?
> > There are none, I agree.
> > I'm very disappointed that Wichert has failed to reopen New
> > Maintainer. This is the biggest failure of his tenure thus far, IMHO.
> Wichert hasn't failed for that and this is not Wicherts fault. Don't
> make it one. Wichert, Dwarf and myself were discussing things recently.
> The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
> -- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org