On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:21:39AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 10:39:35PM +0000, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 01:46:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 03:32:56PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > In this case, wouldn't making the appropriate admin(s) the owner of
> > > > the pseudo package make it so that they wouldn't have to check the bts
> > > > pseudo package specifically?
> > >
> > > Sure, but it still absolutely requires their consent.
> >
> > Who have a demonstrated and persistant lack of interest in anything so
> > openly reviewable, according to past actions, statements made in this
> > thread, and other observations.
>
> Then that is their prerogative.
Indeed it is. I simply think people should keep that in mind (for whatever
it may be worth to them, ranging from "nothing" to "quite a lot") when they
decide to elect the next DPL, since that appears to be the only viable
route toward changing this, if change is what they desire.
How they choose to execute their duties (or, in the eyes of some, fail to
do so), and how the person elected to oversee such things on behalf of the
developer base at large, is most certainly something that should be taken
into consideration (though hardly the only thing) when voting.
One could argue that it might, in fact, be "standing in the way" of someone
else choosing to step up and do the work, but I don't think that having an
extended debate over it would be productive; past evidence would indicate
that people are unlikely to change their minds on the subject no matter how
much rhetoric flies by.
--
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
Debian GNU/kNetBSD(i386) porter : :' :
`. `'
http://nienna.lightbearer.com/ `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature