On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:19:11PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Le Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:22:53PM -0500, Branden Robinson ?crivait: > > > 2. If you're > > > > As DPL, or as Joe Q. Developer? I can't unquestioningly check any of > > these. > > Joe Q. Developer... > > > I don't have a strong personal opinion on this. Sorry to be so > > non-commital, but I live in Debian unstable and so the release schedule > > doesn't impact me the way it does our users. I think it would be > > interesting to survey the developers and have some conversations with > > the Release Manager before mandating any sort of time frame. > > You're saying that the leader should show the way but you don't have > your own opinion. How can you show us the path in those conditions ? By listening to the delegates and developers first. Why do I need to have an opinion on everything poured in cement before I even assume the office, and whatever I learn afterwards be damned? I think that would be a stupid way to run the Project, and would promote a lot of internal discord, which I've said several times is not my aim. I admit that the traditional political approach is to claim to have all the answers and the ability to solve all the problems (even if the office for which one is running doesn't particularly empower one to do so). I'm not interested in taking that approach. I prefer frankness. My platform is not "I will solve everyone's problems and Debian will ender a new Golden Age under my leadership". I personally am skeptical of glib promises, and if what people want is a leader who will utter them, then they should vote for someone else. I'm relatively comfortable losing under such circumstances. Maybe that's not the most politically prudent thing to say, but that's how I feel. In the U.S., anyway, we have a long and venerable tradition of not bothering to hold our elected officials to their campaign promises in any meaningful way. I'd like to think the Debian Project can manage to a little better than that, and cultivate an environment where candidates for Project Leader won't make promises they know they can't keep. I do not think the DPL is empowered to command a release to take place on a particular timeframe. That's what we have a Release Manager for, though even that position is limited by what the Developers in general can actually accomplish with their packages. Given that, I don't think it's necessary that I have a strong opinion on a release timeframe. When it comes to release management, I do not think it is possible to please all of the people all of the time. I don't think we have the resources to have a stable release every 3 months and maintain security and important-bugfix updates for every release in perpetuity. I could be wrong about that, and I'm open to cogent arguments that we do have such resources. Do I have a "gut feeling" about release schedules? Sure. If *I* were Release Manager, I'd be tempted to say "I think it would be good if we released once a year, and terminated support for the previous release after six months -- longer at the Stable Release Manager's discretion". But a lot of people would probably have valid complaints about such a schedule. That's why I don't have a strong opinion on the subject. I'm much more interested in hearing from the RM and SRM, and getting their frank assessments of what they think is manageable. -- G. Branden Robinson | If you wish to strive for peace of Debian GNU/Linux | soul, then believe; if you wish to branden@debian.org | be a devotee of truth, then http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Attachment:
pgpWfATOTuu6N.pgp
Description: PGP signature