On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 09:36:41AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 08:39:22PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote: > > I can't think of a precedent of boycott, so I'll make one up. Let's > > say for example that James Troup, a key person in Debian who is > > employed full-time by Canonical, has the idea of making Ubuntu better > > by making Debian worse, and starts boicotting Debian by blocking > > packages in the NEW queue. > You could take the whole pure64 mess as example :) Since it was strongly > vetoed against in debian by the infrastructure guardians, but ubuntu does it > just fine. Or other nice ideas like the source-only uploads which are done in > ubuntu, but rejected in debian. > I am not saying that these are boycott or influence results. So what are you saying then, that my example was not good enough? ;) Besides joking, I understands your frustration. Luckily those examples, both mine and yours, are just some of the everyday problems that Debian has to solve as part of its growing up and moving on. I think those are areas where we should focus our efforts, but I think that creating conspiration theories outside of debian-curiosa is not the best way. A better way, I think, could be starting to collect and organize facts, so that the same things are not discussed over and over again. Is there, for example, a reasoned wiki page with, say, the TODO-list of reasons why pure64 thing is still a mess? Or a wiki page with the reasoned TODO-list of reasons why we aren't doing source-only uploads? That can be used to remember shouters of the problems still to be solved before shouting again, and to remember the shouted what problems have already been solved and that the shouters are not only shouting. Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature