Re: package ownership in Debian
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:46:58 +0000, Gustavo Franco <gustavorfranco@gmail.com> said:
> On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:16:53 +0000, Gustavo Franco
>> <gustavorfranco@gmail.com> said:
>>
>> > On 7/29/06, Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 02:49:34AM +0000, Gustavo Franco wrote:
>> >> > Hello, i thought Debian project was a big team. If people here
>> >> > don't want to work in a team, we're going nowhere.
>> >>
>> >> Two words for you: Fred Brooks.
>>
>> > More two for you: Be polite.
>>
>> What is so impolite in pointing you to an excellent reference, and
>> gently reminding you that increasing team size (to, say, the number
>> of Debian contributors) is detrimental to product quality and
>> ability to deliver on time?
> Manoj, it's clear he was trolling, it was far from gently reminding
> me, come on.
It is not at all clear that pointing to the mythical man month
in a discussion on forcing teams or even make it all one huge honking
source code repo with universal commit and build from the repo is
trolling at all.
>> >> > I think that force is the wrong term, we should encourage and
>> >> > in some cases require to avoid single point of failure, IMHO.
>> >>
>> >> "require" and "force" certainly seem like the same term to me.
>>
>> > "in some cases" and "in all cases" are different terms to me.
>>
>> So we only force people to be on a team "in some critical cases"?
>> Still sounds like a bad idea to me.
> What's your problem with me? Henrique wrote the same thing some
> messages ago, why you keep replying everything i post here?
> If i'm right, your point here is to keep the things as they're,
Please stop trying to state what other people's motivations
and goals are, your track record WRT to me is not that great.
> teams and individuals maintaining stuff without any changes from the
> procedures we're following now. If yes, make it clear and reply my
> messages like you do with others, right now it seems that you've
> decided to attack me.
My view is that mandatory teams, or making life harder for
single maintainers, is a bad idea. If people want to form teams,
great.
>> >> When you work out how to channel-bond human-to-human
>> >> communications, we'll talk. Until then, please fix actual
>> >> problems instead of making broad statements with no actual
>> >> benefit.
>>
>> > Great comment to do for somebody writing "IMHO", "I think" and
>> > stuff like that.
>>
>> First you chastize me for not speaking for myself, and then when
>> someone does, you yell at them for doing so.
> I did it yes, i thought you were wearing your "captain cap" and make
You know, you really should not project motivations on to
other people. "captain's cap", jeez.
> jokes about if i'm subscribed to private or not. Who cares?
If you are not subscribed to -private, you lack information
about how well teams are getting along with current and ex members.
> Btw, your sentence have nothing to do with my view on Matthew's
> reply. I said to Matthew that he was being rude and told me to fix
> human-to-human communication. It wasn't "Matthew shut up and/or
> speak by yourself". Do you see?
I do not see any rudeness at all. Indeed, could you consider
that perhaps you have a chip on your shoulder?
>> Wonderful consistency :)
> After 6 years around you start learning some tricks with the cabal.
Well, people playing tricks and word games do attract my ire, yes.
manoj
--
A fail-safe circuit will destroy others. Klipstein
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: