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

Re: Ideas about a GR to fix the DAM



On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 08:00:43PM +0000, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 06:48:56PM +0000, Anthony Towns wrote…
> > … quite a lot of things that I won't quote for brevity.
> 
>   I agree fully that a jetring-based (or anything alike) approach would
> be much appreciated. That would solve the fact that the debian-keyring
> package is horribly outdated and many more things. I agree that many
> things you describe in your structural changes _are_ appealing. I also
> believe that what you propose is quite right, and definitely the good
> way to do things.
> 
>   Though, you skip a tiny little detail: how do you will make this real?
> Not technically, I believe all those things you describe are technically
> trivial. I mean socially. We have the current issue that:
> 
>   1. James doesn't feel he is a delegate, because he predates the
>      constitution (it awfully sounds like a “the rules convenientely
>      only apply to others” btw).
> 
>   2. James doesn't trust Joerg, and I believe doesn't trust a lot of
>      people to be up to the task, so he will likely reject many of the
>      proposals that will be made to him about this issue.
> 
>   3. We had a discussion at Debconf8 with James about NM, and he didn't
>      thought he was doing a bad job, he doesn't _think_ he is a
>      bottleneck.  And at the time he was kind of right, only 2 NMs were
>      waiting for him or sth like that, Joerg was the complete blocker
>      (and it has been true until sth like 2 weeks ago or so), so he was
>      rejecting the delays on the “over-administrative-thing” NM has
>      become since he created the concept (at the time it was a
>      James-phone-call-at-home, no surprise the current form is quite a
>      shock to him), and on Joerg.
> 
>      Note that I believe this is unfair, Joerg and James have _both_
>      been major blockers in the NM queue.  And like always when 2 people
>      are overloaded, they aren't at the same time, so it's likely that
>      every NM has to wait on _both_.  What I see is that each one is
>      rejecting the issue on the other.  And that nobody dares to tell
>      this truth: none of them is up to the task 100% of the year.  And
>      we do need to accept new contributors on a regular basis.
> 
>   4. At least the 3 last DPL, plus now sam tried to address that, and
>      well, I'm not sure it's even moving in any direction right now.

    5. James isn't following Debian as a Community for some years (I
       mean, I don't know if he even _reads_ lists) and it's a big issue
       for someone supposed to act as a DAM. the DAM is supposed to
       _know_ DDs a bit. DAM is a bit Debian's Human Resources, and
       James is all but a public figure nowadays.

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpzltGjQ6gW8.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: