Re: Call for a new DPL mediation ... This will be the only thread i will reply to in the next time about this issue.
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 01:36:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> A small clarification that doesn't really have much bearing on what's
> going on: in so far as the d-i team is the *Debian* installer team, the
> project as a whole (via GR, or representatives like the DPL, tech ctte,
> or delegates) gets to decide who are members.
That may be theoretically true, but in practical terms, it's a
meaningless point. If the team currently developing d-i splits from
Debian and sets up alternate hosting, the project would be faced with
putting together a new team from scratch, and bringing them up to
speed, or with simply continuing to use the software developed by the
now non-Debian-controlled project. The former would be a massive
waste of time and resources, especially in the presence of working
software that would still be available for Debian's continued use.
Giving Sven commit access without the agreement and cooperation of the
existing team is effectively asking for a fork. My point is, and
continues to be, if a fork is what's desired, why not just create a
fork? We don't need official action to create a fork.
> Of course, that doesn't mean the project can force people to work
> together, just that we get to decide which group ends up being the
> official Debian team.
Yes, but if the people qualified to, capable of, and willing to do the
work leave the official team, then the official team will quickly
become as relevant as XFree86.
I am the official dictator of everyone who is willing to obey my every
whim! It's a wonderful power that works perfectly as long as I never
exercise it! :)
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
email@example.com | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or firstname.lastname@example.org | volcaniconi- standalone haiku