Re: Debian Etch Stable.
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:56:33AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The release was the only metric put forward for the experiment,
> > despite various requests.
> Actually, I believe you'll find that that wasn't even put forward as a
> metric for the experiment.
In your own words, the experiment was to allocate sufficient funds so
that Steve Langasek and Andreas Barth can dedicate a month each to
getting etch out on time (and Mon 4 Dec 06 was already given as the
> As per , it wasn't even the primary goal of the payments.
>  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/10/msg00027.html
Nice rewriting! There you refused to offer any measurements at all,
set a "success" condition which is very subjective and dismissed whole
categories of concerns as inappropriate for reply.
I think the experiment has even failed to provide useful information
it could have, partly due to the refusal to take or request any
recognisable measurements. Any future DPL funding initiative could be
argued from this experiment in any direction whatsoever. So, it
wasn't even very successful by that later criterion.
Further, it's cynical and unrealistic to demand that those unhappy
with the experiment to fulfil the DPL's wishlist at this busiest time
of year for festivals and so on. After this recent bad time for
debian, I think it's understandable if developers feel it would be
more rewarding to spend time with family and friends. I hope that
reporters are smart enough to recognise both that demand and the
refusal to report yet as the politicking of a DPL trying to hide the
negatives of his decisions.
Hope that explains,
MJR/slef, a developer in favour of accountable, equitable paid work on
debian for those who want it and against calling the dunc-tank an
experiment. My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct