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

Re: Proposal for public announcement for the next release update

Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org> writes:
>> Why was it not suitable? Why should you start from scratch and base it
>> on the mail to -devel-announce if it's clear that the mail to
>> -devel-announce was clearly different on purpose?
> The mail Marc wrote talks about things he wrote somewhere else instead
> of containing something.
> Did you get the basics?  I'm too lazy to continue to rip apart the
> next paragraph as well.

Let's see what you wrote instead:

| The Debian project confirms December 2006 as the date for the next
| release of its distribution which will be named Debian GNU/Linux 4.0
| alias 'etch'.

It is anything but sure that we will be able to release in december,
which you present as a fact. This is simply wrong and may hurt Debian's
reputation (or stabilize Debian's reputation that it's not able to
release in time).

| This will be the first official release to include the AMD64
| architecture. The distribution will be released synchronously for 11
| architectures in total. 

The second sentence is useless, as noone knows for which architectures
Debian will be released. Also, if someone remembers that we had 11
architectures in sarge, they will wonder how we manage to add a new
architecture and still have 11 archs.

I won't comment at the rest, but I really can't understand how *you* can
be happy about your performance as person behind press@d.o. You react
quite slow and your press releases are not approved by the teams working on
the issues you speak about.

> In this case, and I've already written this, HE did whine all the time
> when he saw me, crying and saying how ow annoyed he is by me.  So the
> issue obviously is so important, that it couldn't stand another day or
> two for discussion.

No, I asked you to release it in a timely manner, so that the problems
of magazines and news sites misinterpreting parts of the
developer-centered press release would be avoided.

You failed to do so.

> If he would have behaved more patient and hadn't acted like a small
> child, there would have been discussion.

I haven't acted like a small child, I asked you to do the job you have
agreed to do. If you're not willing to accept people working with you on
some issues, you should at least react in a timely manner. You didn't.

> Basically I had no time between writing the announcement and
> announcing it since the issue was so pressing.

No, it wasn't. I asked you to not release anything after you ignored the
release team for almost a week. You ignored this request.

Sorry, but after you are trying to *defend* your miserable performance
and don't accept that you did something wrong, I can only ask you to
step down as press contact. CCed to leader@d.o.

BOFH #371:
Incorrectly configured static routes on the corerouters.

Attachment: pgpE65fTuziV3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: