Re: Consultant entries that will be removed unless there is an email address provided
Manoj again trims mention of the reasons why I support the change and
continues to respond to questions with questions rather than answers.
I conclude that it is impossible to convince him of the benefits of
letting the consultants index maintainers contact people by email
and his rhetoric is infinite. The motive for his complaint has also
been removed, so this is my last contribution to the subthread.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org (va, manoj)> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2005 17:05:34 +0100, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> said:
> > I would expect a listing on the global debian web site is not very
> > interesting to those two types.
> And why should your expectations of their interest trump their
> prior request to be listed?
Don't know. Not my call.
> Don't you think they know better whether
> such a listing is of interest to them?
Who cares? The listing is maintained by the maintainers.
> > Also, may the listing maintainers decide that they do not want to
> > spend the resources (not just money) chasing hard-to-reach
> > consultants?
> A contact address does not neeed to be published. Are you
> seriously telling me You have no idea how to reach Joey?
I've already written how to contact him. I have as little interest
as you in doing that task, it seems, but someone clearly did, as
the required info is in CVS now.
> > 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?
> You have a funny view of the word "force". Hey, if you can be
> forced into doing things by emails on a list [...]
Note "trying to". With any luck, you fail.
> > It hasn't. Since when do business plans dictate Project behaviour?
> Nicely argumentative, but silly. The project offers a listing,
> their business plan does not make the project offer it.
Cool. So, let's not offer it to people without public email addresses.
> The criteria for listing seems to be arbitrary -- why should
> a contact email be published?
I've answered that already.
> Since the person sends in an email to request listing in
> the first place, that can be kept around as a contact address.
We had no email addresses listed with these consultants.
> >> 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.
> It does not make debian work harder, unless debian also works
> stupid. A simple text file in the same directory as the web listing
> as the consultatns page can provide adequate contact information, and
> can even be formulated to be easy to parse, to help scripting pings.
If the contact information were in the same directory as
consultants.data, it would probably attract spam anyway.
> >> [...] 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.
> This is called trusting people to deal with things, and
> stepping in when the result is obviously flawed.
You have stepped in uselessly, offering no fix. I hope that made
you happy, as it served no other purpose yet. Well done.
> I had little
> interest in the consultant policy, I trusted folks to do the right
> thing. However, if it means that a listing from someone prominently
> visible and active is gonna be dropped becausze it fails to meet
> "policy", well, the policy has a flaw. [...]
Unsafe conclusion. Maybe that someone had what you would
call "a flaw": being busy.
--
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Reply to: