First off I would like to apologize for my rude email to d-d/d-q-k that was mentioned below. I was quite upset at the time which could have easily been alleviated had certain key people involved with the buildds decided communication was a useful tool. On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:41:04PM +0100, James Troup wrote: > Hi, > > If anyone thinks this GR will actually achieve anything positive, > they're mistaken. A GR to make the various delegated developers communicate would be better but that probably wouldn't work either... > If anyone thinks that trying to decide technical issues through voting > is a good idea, I pity them. I doubt anyone does, and it is a pity it came to this. > If anyone thinks that they can insult people as much as they like[0] > and that the people they insult still have some obligation to respond > to them, they're entirely mistaken.[1] People have had problems with certain people in Debian for much longer than the quoted examples. Those people just don't seem to get communication would solve nearly all of these problems and still fail to have even basic communication with the rest of Debian. > If anyone thinks "$foo doesn't communicate with $bar" == "$foo doesn't > communicate", they're being at best disingenuous. Wrt the comment I made mentioned below the buildd admins obviously did not communicate with anyone outside possibly some private list. It took over a month for even the DPL to come up with an answer as to what was happening with the buildds. So "$foo doesn't communicate" is more accurate in this case than "$foo doesn't communicate with $bar". > If anyone thinks that abusing debian-devel-announce or GRs is the best > (or indeed "only") way to force through their pet issue, they're very > much mistaken. No one thinks this is the best way, they think it is the only way since certain people never communicate. In the case with the buildds the buildd admins didn't even respond it took the DPL to act as a go between to even get the information posted. This is not something he should have to do, individual groups in Debian should be able to communicate without having to go through the DPL as an intermediary. Sometimes it may be necessary but it should be the exception not the rule. > If anyone thinks Debian in general is good at communication, they're > deluded. I've filed bugs that haven't see any communication in over 4 > years. A non-RC bug report is a little different especially in scope compared to the issues that typically blow up like this. Example the buildds being dead for over a month, or keyring not accepting new keys for 6mo+ (iirc), etc. FWIW - If anyone thinks I am doing a poor job maintaining KDE please join the maintenance group. You can even take over the package entirely if you really want to. I don't want to be a blocker in Debian. > I will not be blackmailed into doing things for people who have public > tantrums to try and force stuff through. In fact, it'll very much > encourage me to not work on whatever it is they're whining about. > (And others have warned that this is the case[2].) The email [2] as mentioned below was primarily telling me to call you on the phone about the issue. At least it seemed that way to me... Would you like me to call you on the phone, perhaps I could spare the $20 or so that it would cost to call you. > If you want to help with getting amd64 into the archive then, please, > reign in its more vocal proponents - they're only succeeding in > delaying its addition to the archive. This would seem to be a violation of the SC... Both points 3 and 4. Of course no one should have to put up with abusive emails, but if the abuse is a response to inaction by a person in an elevated position they should think about why the person emailing them thought abusive language was necessary. Perhaps it was because the person in the elevated position never communicates when there are problems/issues. A little communication goes a long way... > -- > James - as always speaking only for myself > > [0] e.g. "every minute spent thinking of this fuckwit makes me lose > one month of life" [Josselin Mouette, the GR Proposer on IRC, > referring to Ryan Murray.] > or "The buildd admins must be incompetent or on crack." > [Chris Cheney, the debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org > abuser, in http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20040120.041904.3885b3c4.html] Which posts were abuse of debian-devel-announce? The quoted email was not to d-d-a despite what the text seems to state. If you recall this inappropiate email was about the fact that the buildds failed quite a few packages and they did not get retried for over a month. It took nearly a month after that email to even find out via the DPL what the problem was[3]. If regular emails fail to gain any response sometimes people do stupid and rude things like make the above comments. I apologize for my comments, but the point still stands that you never communicate until there is a big blowup on the lists. > [1] Don't get me wrong - I couldn't care less if/how random people > insult me and the fact that several of the folks who keep > demanding its inclusion into the archive have been personally > abusive to me doesn't in anyway affect amd64's inclusion into the > archive. It does however mean that I tend to ignore mail from > them and threads started by them. Really all they want to know is what is going on wrt ftpmaster that is keeping amd64 from being added. The DPL said it was more than just the mirroring situation but told me to ask ftpmaster directly for more information. I asked this in a polite email a month ago to ftpmaster with no response at all. > [2] http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20040628.100711.6512a302.html This email was primarily about the fact I should call you on the phone since you refused to respond to email. I didn't think you would appreciate that, and I also am low on money, so I didn't bother. Finally, I would like to mention that part of Martin's platform was to get various groups to communicate better, I have not personally seen this happening perhaps I am just not looking on the right lists? Chris [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/02/msg00463.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature