Re: so ... let's merge DAM and FD?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 02-07-2009 18:15, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 02/07/09 at 12:05 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
>> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> Richard Hecker wrote:
>>>> While consensus might exist that eliminating bureaucracy is good,
>>>> division of labor can be a good thing too. I do not think you have
>>>> established the need to combine the FD and DAM tasks. Are you
>>>> claiming the DAMs are too bureaucratic?
>>> No, what is bureaucratic is having to wait one month for FD to review
>>> one application, just to say `hey it's complete`, and pass it to the
>>> DAM. Then wait another month. I don't see the point in it being
>>> reviewed twice if FD has no say in the final decision and his only
>>> task is to check that everything is complete.
>> In this community, do you really want to suggest we have too many eyes
>> looking for problems?
> Seriously, Richard. You became a DD in 2001, and since then, you have
> only done 17 uploads on 3 different packages (last one in 2007, on the
> only package you maintain: set6x86).
> Emilio isn't a DD yet, and has already been in the Changed-By: field of
> 80 uploads. And given that for most of them it was work done inside the
> GNOME team, he probably touched a lot more packages.
> Don't you think that there's some sense in listening to what Emilio
> says, whithout immediately minimizing his arguments, since he has
> already been at least 4 times more useful to Debian than you were during
> the last 8 years?
I found a little bit hard to measure usefulness based on
number of uploads and I don't think that this line of answer of
minimizing somebody's contribution would improve the quality of
the debate. Nothing against the argumentation, but it pretty
much smells like ad-hominem.
Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
"Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----