On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:57:01PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: > >> We're far beyond trying to help them, at least for me, [...] > > Your opinions are only ever going to be considered in so far as you're > > willing to help make them a reality. If you're not willing to help, > > find something else to worry about. > So you think that from the project's point of view it is okay if nobody > can expect basic "support" from core infrastructure teams? I think we're talking about different things, so the following's a bit verbose in hopes that it makes it a bit clearer. If they don't do it, and it's important, someone else will. Cf the security team versus testing security support, backports or volatile versus ftpmaster, alioth versus DAM, or whatever. So yes, I do think it's okay even if we couldn't expect "basic" support from core infrastructure teams. > All we are > allowed to consider with respect to these teams is to help *them*, not > to achieve help? You can reasonably expect them to do what they've said they will, or what the role obviously entails. You can also expect that every now and then you'll be disappointed and that won't be achieved, and that the only things you can really do about that is not worry about it and hope it's better next time, work out how to do it yourself, or figure out some way of helping them out. That's not what I was referring to though: I was talking about when you want someone else to do things in the way you'd like, rather than the way they prefer. That's something that only ever happens if you help out, whether you're talking about a user making suggestions to a maintainer, a maintainer making suggestions to upstream, or anything of the sort. You're not owed anything by people who freely donate their time to maintain things you use, it works better if you remember that. All I'm saying is it's a two-way process -- if you spend lots of time actually helping out someone, and they don't return the favour by helping you out, you shouldn't keep wasting your time. > If yes, what is then the purpose of having infrastructure teams? If you don't have infrastructure teams you don't have infrastructure in the first place, well maintained or not... And if we didn't have useful infrastructure, someone would make it, and we'd have an infrastructure team. No "purpose" required... I don't think I understand the question. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature