Re: [PROPOSED] Michael Bramer must stop spamming or be expelled
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Sven wrote:
> I received a german translation of on of my packages description, and after
> having read it, i communicated with the translator and together we found a
> better translation. Also i did change the english description following to
> this discution, as i noticed some things could be improved there also.
> So, at least something usefull as come of those mails, altough i agree with
> others that wouldn't know what to do with a japanese or rusian translation.
> Also, for those who complain, procmail is your friend, ...
Please, let no one suggest further that procmail is a solution here. This is
tantamount to admitting that these messages *are* equivalent to Spam -- that
because the recipient has the technical means to filter out the messages, they
have no cause for complaint. But the burden should not be on the recipient to
make the system work the way it needs to, it should be on the sender of the
messages.
I was among those who argued initially that the maintainer needs to be kept in
the loop, and should therefore receive the translations. But clearly, there
are maintainers who don't share this view, and they are (rightfully) upset
that they have to repeatedly ask, for every new package they upload, to be
excluded from the notifications. For the sake of the DDTS itself, a technical
solution should be found that lets developers opt out if they feel they have
nothing to contribute to the translation process, and that lets everyone get
back to work. Infighting among developers takes the focus away from both free
software and our users, and telling dozens of developers[1] to shove off and
use procmail if they don't like the state of things is just the sort of
reaction that would encourage infighting.
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
[1] I'm assuming that the developers currently participating in these
discussions are not the only ones who are displeased with the current state of
affairs, as that would be statistically improbable.
Reply to: