Re: my thoughts on the Vancouver Prospectus
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:26:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > > > * Three bodies (Security, System Administration, Release) are given
> > > > > independent veto power over the inclusion of an architecture.
> > > > > A) Does the entire team have to exercise this veto for it to be
> > > > > effective, or can one member of any team exercise this power
> > > > > effectively?
> > > >
> > > > It's expected that each team would exercise that veto as a *team*, by
> > > > reaching a consensus internally.
> > >
> > > This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
> > > allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
> >
> > And a non-elected, non-properly-delegated, self-apointed group of people at
> > that.
>
> Are you suggesting replacing the entire release and ftp-master teams?
> If so, please suggest who you would like in that role instead (or if we
> should all vote on it -- because hey, every position in Debian needs to
> be elected).
>
> Are you suggesting that everyone in Debian who has not been elected to
> their position should be elected so?
No i am suggesting that it is not the responsability of a small non-mandated
group to decide singlehandedly to kill 2/3rd of our ports, nor are mandated to
reject the work of a whole subgroup of DDs on a whim.
The ftp-masters are mandated by the DPL to handle the debian infrastructure,
not to decide what arches debian should support or not. And the vancouver
document somehow showed a willingness on the part of some of them to fork
themselves away from the rest of debian, and they hold us hostage by the
responsabilities on key position they hold on the project, which altough being
a huge amount of work and i admire them for it, it doesn't do to belittle the
contribution of the other DDs like that.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: