Re: Proposed change to Debian constitution
On 30 Dec 1999, James Troup wrote:
> Chris Lawrence <email@example.com> writes:
> > 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.
> I didn't "stage a walkout"; I quit. I've had nothing to do with
> new-maintainer since then. I fail to see how that's "improper
> behaviour" which "screwed Debian over".
Really? So when I visited you and you saw you had about 500+ messages
in your new-maintainer box; marked them as read; and then said ``Oh,
we are not really accepting people'' it isn't a walkout?
It was some months later when you bothered to make it oficial and let
Plus if you have resigned why does new-maintainer still point to you?
> single one of them turning up to object? I'd also be prepared to bet
> silly amounts of money, that someone who took the time, could go
> through and find another 100 without significant effort?
No shit. Perhaps they are pissed off at the NM team to care anymore.
> Perhaps people should look at all unjustifiable abuse people who do
> stuff for Debian receive (wahey, Ben C anyone?)? And consider the
> implications of it...
We are talking about you here; the abuse isn't unjustified especially
when the NM team (and you specifically) have had people asking you
about this problems for *months*.
People have been talking about it for *months*. Fine you, like
everyone else, has been busy at work. The polite thing to do would
have been to asked for further help from someone you trusted or
resign. It took a mob of people to convince you to do the later.