[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Call for votes for "GR: : Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel"

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:43:03 +0100 (BST), MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> said: 
> > Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <frank@debian.org> wrote:
> >> [...] And how about your offering him to proofread the ballot?  Or
> >> just doing it, since he actually posted it in public for that very
> >> purpose?
> > I thought it was posted so that everyone could see the Secretary had
> > shown it to the Proposer and Seconders.
>         Why on earth would I just "show" people stuff?

Transparency.  If not for that or comment, why is it posted?

> > The most common response to other comments recently is suggesting
> > that the commenter is too thick to vote.
>         Commentary is one thing. Hysterical overreaction to the
>  magnitude of the error is another.

Quite.  Neither "These instructions are self-contradictory" nor "name the
amendment on the ballot" are hysterical overreaction, whereas "Does anyone
themselves have had problems figuring out what this was all about" and
"Rubish. You have tow overlapping constraints" seem closer to hysterical:
so keen to flame that spelling and grammar went out the window.

> I think this phenomena stems from
>  people no longer treating Debian as a fun project that a group of
>  volunteers got together to do -- the paradigm has shifted to people
>  wanting service. This might be a result of Debian growing too large
>  and anonymous -- now people want services, and complain if the
>  service does not meet their standards.
>         This is true also of other role aspects -- DAM, FTP-master,
>  etc.  When you are expecting a service, you are the most important
>  component -- your needs must be met. there is no room for erros on
>  the part of the so called service provider. You know, the customer is
>  always right.

At least for me, it's not like that.  As with LUGs, I thank people when
they help and I expect people holding roles to be polite in reply to
polite requests, to be reasonably open and to clean up their own mistakes
promptly once asked.  If they can't cope with such basic teamwork any
longer, they should seek assistance, resign or be replaced.  At worst,
it should take less than 3 years to fix a simple error or grant those
affected power to fix it.

Unlike LUGs, I've seldom seen thanks for any debian things I do.  In one
way, that's OK - I do debian tasks for pragmatic reasons and I've only
twice been offered small extra roles AFAICR - but it does suggest to me
that something's rotten in the debian world.  I think more small teams,
more egalitarianism and more openness are the way forwards, but that
seems to be opposite of the current direction of travel - for now.

> > shame
>         Indeed.  People whould stop treating fellow volunteers as
>  faceless workers, and realize that mistakes happen, and help work
>  around them, rather than raising the roof about how the sky is
>  falling.

That works both ways.  People should stop treating fellow volunteers
as faceless workers and use the power of their role to encourage them,
rather than seeming to spend equivalent effort on discouraging them.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: