[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: misleading use of d-d-a (was Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment")

Andrew Pollock <apollock@debian.org> wrote:
> [lengthy whinge snipped]

Funny.  Looks to me like some valid unanswered questions were snipped, 
some of which were asked right back near when this effort was first 

> I think it's uncool to be sending emails to d-d-a with "position statement"
> in the subject that aren't indicative of a position statement of the
> project.

The signatories are clearly named.  It is their position and whatever 
the position of the project is has little to do with it.

> We've had not one, but two GRs recently, which came out supporting what aj's
> doing. If anything, one could draw from these results that the "position
> statement" of the project is exact opposite to what you've put forward on
> d-d-a. 

Options in the two GRs were split between ballots and some options were 
missing, making it a sequence of black-white fights instead of a 
resolution process, but I also doubt the majority would support the 
recently-posted position.

> Way to send conflicting messages to the public.

The developers have conflicting views.  Anyone expecting this to look 
neat to the public when "we will not hide problems" is a key general aim 
should take a reality check.

> For the record, the constant bitching and moaning is demotivating me more
> than anything else.

So stop bitching and moaning at the developers who have posted their 
views and try to resolve this problem!

> If you don't like what's going on, remember it's only an experiment, and
> after the experiment is done, raise whatever GRs are necessary to make sure
> it can never happen again.

How?  This is for real, not an experiment - we can't turn back the clock 
if it breaks the project.  It trades on debian's goodwill, yet is 
outside our agreements.  The only GRs which can be raised to make sure 
it can never happen again are so harsh (like making some non-debian 
actions incompatible with being DPL) that they seem unlikely to pass.

So, as there seems no hope of making progress through the usual 
channels, I fully support these direct action tactics currently being 
used, even if I don't share all of the concerns.  The Dunc-Tank board 
should start negotiating (as they should have done much earlier), but at 
least two of them have a history of troublesome inertia.

Hope that explains,
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble

Reply to: