Re: Proposed change to Debian constitution
On Dec 29, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 07:07:54PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > OK. Whose fault is it?
> With all due respect, I don't believe it matters.
I must disagree here. If there is a specific problem with certain
individuals obstructing progress in New Maintainer, it's the DPL's job
to either (a) get progress going again or (b) find someone else who
will. This isn't the first time we've had a failure of leadership in
the past year because of progress being obstructed by 1 or 2
developers... the /usr/share transition springs immediately to mind.
As for naming names, it's a matter of accountability. Yes, NM is
messed up. Now we need to make sure NM doesn't get messed up again,
and to do that we need people in NM we can trust not to stage a
walkout when their perception of the project (as being overloaded with
deadweight developers who cultivate pages of bug reports on their
packages) is woefully at odds with reality. And one way to do that is
to figure out (a) who did what and (b) ensure those "whos" who acted
improperly aren't in a position to screw us over again.
Yep, I'm mad, if only because I've been dealing with 3 potential
developers who'd be real assets to this project, who are getting more
disillusioned with us daily because of crap like this.
Chris, who will PGP sign this on request.
| Chris Lawrence | Get Debian GNU/Linux CDROMs |
| <email@example.com> | http://www.lordsutch.com/cds/ |
| | |
| Debian Developer | Join the party that opposed the CDA |
| http://www.debian.org/ | http://www.lp.org/ |