On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:39:56PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 12:56:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > If my reply to Steve Langasek was insufficient to answer your questions, > > please let me know. > > im assuming the one in <20030226055427.GF32656@deadbeast.net>? if yes, > then it wasnt exactly what i was wondering about. Yes, that's the one I meant. > mostly i was wondering if you were elected, if the release process would > be an area of focus for you. It will be important, but not priority one. The release process is primarily the responsibility of the Release Manager, who is a delegate of the DPL. I have no intention of usurping the authority of the Release Manager until and unless I can determine that there is a serious problem with the current delegate. That's not presently the case. It's important to remember the meaning of delegation -- a task isn't being delegated if it's being micromanaged. > that does not necessarily mean forcing any particular release > schedule, but rather, if you would survey the developers and users[1] > and try to get a process going that might improve the release process > somehow.[2] Yes, I'd like to work with Anthony Towns, Joey Schulze, and perhaps some other people to come up with a formal survey that would help us learn a little more about where the Project wants to go. > i wonder because i didnt see anything in your platform about the release > process. That's mainly because I'm not running for Release Manager. > [1] i think you and martin already said you planned on doing this. > [2] the release process is not necessarily broken, but could use some > improvements, especially for workstation users, who like to have > more recent software. I agree that a lot of people have concerns about the release process; I also think that some of the goals people have are in conflict with each other. I think John Goerzen said: Pick two: * Latest software * Broad selection of software * Rock-solid stability I advance that you cannot choose three simultaneously from that list. Debian chooses the last two. OpenBSD chooses the first and last. Mandrake chooses the first two. [1] I think John may be right about this, in which case actually coming up with a list of Debian release "traits", asking people to rank them, and then processing the results with the Condorcet method might be an educational experience. Still, I envision that this would be a survey only, not marching orders for the Release Manager. [1] Message-ID: <20030225214304.GA6036@wile.excelhustler.com> -- G. Branden Robinson | Don't use nuclear weapons to Debian GNU/Linux | troubleshoot faults. branden@debian.org | -- US Air Force Instruction 91-111 http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpgiKJ4DoccW.pgp
Description: PGP signature