Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:33:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:11:55PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:00:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:35:07PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > > > Uh, what's this if not peer review?
> > > > It's not peer review when we discuss it later and none of us (including
> > > > you) have any power to do anything about it, except via long drawn-out
> > > > political processes.
> > > Err, I could change it right now if I thought that was the best thing
> > > to do. I'm not, for the reasons I've already commented on.
> > Right, you could change dak. You can't/won't/? fix the process by which
> > the current restrictions were added though.
> I don't think that's broken in the first place.
Then you don't see any conflict of interest between the arm buildd admin
and the ftp-master?
> The way buildd requests are dealt with... might not be broken, but is
> certainly suboptimal. But there's improvements in the pipeline for that
> (which, yes, I do need to mail about), and afaics running a qemu based
> buildd does nothing to improve it.
The fact that Aurelien's buildd was running on qemu seems to be beside
the point (and wouldn't even be detectable if he hadn't blogged about
it); it's the fact that he was running a "rogue" buildd.
I mean, how dare he try to help the project in this way.
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>