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

Re: The Debian Maintainers GR

Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> * Raphael Hertzog (hertzog@debian.org) [070728 14:57]:
>>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:

>> However, in the DM case, you didn't speak first with the people knowing
>> about the issues, but tried a rewrite from scratch.
> Historically, the project was only a project of an ftpmaster (Anthony).
> Once he wanted to deploy it, there has been some internal objections
> from another ftpmaster.
> Since ftpmasters couldn't take a decision alone, Anthony decided to ask
> the project approval with this GR.
> Anthony publically spoke of his project at several points in time and all
> the people involved in NM sure had noticed the discussions on
> debian-project. I would have like some more participation from them
> but the few messages I've seen involve skepticism and not a willingness to
> integrate the good stuff in NM.

Which could very well indicate that they don't really like to be passed. The
proposal looks much more a fork than the non official buildds do...

> There has been at least two alternative GR proposals but none got
> seconded, and the NM people could have drafted an alternative proposal
> to ask the project to implement something more sensible in their opinion.
> None of this happened, you can't blame Anthony for that.

Why not, he didn't ask for any reaction from FD, NM or DAM before proposing,
so I very much blame him for not having a good proposal in the vote...

> I'm sorry if you feel that the current vote is sub-optimal, but you should
> have gotten involved earlier. In the mean time, this vote involves only
> acceptance of the 'principle', the real implementation can evolve and
> possibly get integrated into NM (exactly like sponsorship got integrated
> in NM after sponsorship got created).

If it's only about the principle, why is the proposal concrete about so much
details? Sorry, but that doesn't sound at all *only* about the principle...

The option that looks best to me to vote for is indeed further discussion...



Reply to: