On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 03:12:48PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> Which brings me to the DPL's involvment in this particular train of thought.
> If the developer that is being asked to do something, or asked to discuss
> something, is themself not motivated to do(discuss), then there is nothing
> that the DPL can actually do to change that. Motivation is generally a
> personal thing.
Eh? Speaking for myself, I certainly find I'm able to be motivated
by others. Looking at the RC bug graph and its reaction to various
policies set up by myself and other folks working on release management,
it certainly seems possible to get significant results from leadership
positions.
> So, in summary(I'm rambled on long enough), I see no point in having a DPL.
> None whatsoever. And I consider all those, past, present, and future, who are
> associated with the DPL office, suspect for their motivations in seeking it.
"I can't see the point of the DPL position. Therefore there isn't
one. Therefore everyone who has run for the DPL position is innately
evil or immoral."
And people wonder why DPLs aren't more active or effective.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature