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

Re: Proposed change to Debian constitution

I don't have time for this BS; I'm off to London in a couple of hours
to watch the end of the world, and I won't have net access there, so
if I don't reply for a while that's why.

Anand Kumria <wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au> writes:

> > 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?

Uh, that's quite simply a pack of lies, Anand.  I've _never_ had 500+
messages in my new-maintainer box; I don't even _now_ and I haven't
opened it since my mail to debian-private (which was 3 months ago).
And I didn't mark them as read; I've *never* deleted unprocessed mail
from my new-maintainer fold since I created it.

> Plus if you have resigned why does new-maintainer still point to
> you?

Because no one bothered to remove me from the alias?  I certainly
haven't looked at the mail box since my mail to debian-private and I'm
not actually convinced could open it now[1].  Christ, if it offends
you, get someone to take me off; I, surely, don't care.
> The polite thing to do would have been to asked for further help
> from someone you trusted or resign. 

You don't ask for people on new-maintainer anymore than you can
nominate someone to be DPL (who isn't already running).  They have to
volunteer.  It's a shit job, and someone asked to do it, isn't going
to put it up with for any useful length of time.

BTW, Anand, if you have such strong feelings about this, how come you
didn't talk about this shit when we met in person?  Or perhaps, it's
easier to flame (not to mention, be ``economical with the truth'')
blithely in email?


[1] Gnus seems to have issues with large nnfolder files where the
mails are large...

Reply to: