Re: Debian Etch Stable.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 10:07:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 12:11:07PM +0100, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> > It looks to me that you are now asking others to set up the
> > experimental protocol you failed to deliver when the "experiment" was
> > being discussed. As of now, anything that might happen can be reused for
> > a Dunc-Tank PR explaining how much the "experiment" helped.
>
> As far as any hypothetical PR is concerned, "vocal critics of the
> Dunc-Tank procedure declined to contribute any effort to getting the
> release out sooner, even to demonstrate how effective Debian can be in
> the absence of paid work" seems like it would be entirely sufficient. I
> don't really see the point of caring about PR for Dunc-Tank though --
> from Debian's POV it's a separate project, so it can say what it likes
> and if it lies to the press it'll pay the price soon enough, and from
> Dunc-Tank's POV, it needs to fulfill its various obligations -- eg,
> a thorough post-etch report on what happened -- before it even starts
> thinking about promoting itself to do new things in the future.
How are you going to differentiate the work done by those favoring not paying
from the one you will attribute to paying ?
Already you can measure the long term lost motivation, and what you are asking
is in fact for people to regain motivation, but i fear that this will later be
used in favour of the paying-party in the experiment. Many will share this
view of things.
One thing you could do is to end *NOW* the experiment, with a full report, and
once that is done, you can call for non-paying people to feel motivated again,
but doing it the other way around is dishonest and will falsify the result of
the experiment.
Maybe even some will start feeling motivated again only once you are no more
DPL, or whatever.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: