Re: Consultant entries that will be removed unless there is an email address provided
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org (va, manoj)> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2005 11:47:50 +0100, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> said:
> > Is the stable release manager still offering debian services and
> > wants listing on w.d.o/c?
> Have you asked?
I've already written as much. You don't know either, eh?
> >> Why is there such a stringent requirement for a email address
> >> anyway?
> > See my other email on this topic for two reasons.
> Your other email on the topic said this:
[quotes email with no reasons]
> Which also fails to explain why the Debian project is
> insisting on a business plan that requires the use of email/
Not surprising when you reference the wrong email. Try
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/05/msg00127.html
which you've already seen, but seemed to ignored the reasons.
> >> Why can't interested parties pone the consultant directly?
> > Expense. Why can't consultants send in their email addresses?
> Since they choose to only spend their time dealing with people
> who are either in the area or are committed enough to spend the
> money?
I would expect a listing on the global debian web site is not very
interesting to those two types. Also, may the listing maintainers
decide that they do not want to spend the resources (not just money)
chasing hard-to-reach consultants?
I'm sure I read lessons from you about the problems of forcing
a DD to do a particular task in a particular way. Why are you
now trying to bounce consultants@ into following your view?
> Since they do not want to face the Spam?
I have more sympathy for this (a listing on w.d.o does attract some
extra spam) but not being on the site doesn't bring no spam, so we
should probably all use whatever anti-spam measures we choose.
> Since when does the Project decide to dictate business plans?
It hasn't. Since when do business plans dictate Project behaviour?
> And why is the project discriminating against business plans?
It discriminates against business plans that make debian work
harder, just as it does in so many other ways.
> Who made this decision?
Luk and whoever else is maintaining the listing. If you want to
try to reverse their decision, you of all people should know how.
The move towards this has been a lot more open for longer
than some other parts of debian. At least they tried to build
a consensus and explain questionable points, then tried to
compromise on disputed points.
> [...] Liking a policy, since one has spent eons of time crafting
> one, is to be expected.
You seem ignorant: to be clear, it is not a policy I shaped much
and I definitely didn't spend eons on it. I responded to some
consultations about it and I think it's the best offer so far.
Like Steve Langasek, you have suggested no improvement or fix
which doesn't reopen other bugs.
> Defending it it willynilly despite flaws is
> silly. Flaming people pointing them out is idiotic. [...]
I have not flamed you yet, despite your linguistic pyrotechnics.
--
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Reply to: