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

Re: Ideas about a GR to fix the DAM

2007/11/17, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>:
> I don't think there's anything to be done until the technical things are
> solved. Demonstrating that a DM keyring can be maintained by a team would
> be helpful to show that the DD keyring can be maintained by a team, but we
> haven't done that yet.

I agree with you that making sure that technical means will really work
is important before we start to tackle the social problem.

> I don't think anyone else (outside of Debian) has
> either. (As far as convincing James goes, jetring has the further problem
> that it's a bunch of perl and shell scripts; and he's a dead-set python
> addict these days -- but at least jetring's designed such that there's
> nothing stopping us from writing a compatible replacement in python)

I completely disagree that the personal preference of a programming
language should dictate the technical means we should choose.  I'm
really happy that James does not prefer say PL/I and we would be forced
to clone an existing software in this or any other language.

> >   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).

This is just strange.  Is there any quote or evidence for such kind of

> The real problem is that James actually has good reasons for why a lot
> of proposals for fixing things won't actually work well. If he didn't
> have a history of sound judgement, it'd be really easy to just ignore
> whatever he thought and do something different.

There is no doubt that James has a profound judgement.  The question
is whether there is nobody besides James who is able to judge similarly
and even if so why James does nothing against this situation and shares
his knowledge.

> You can improve things by:
>         - making things more fun and rewarding (so people are more inclined
>           to dedicate more time)
>         - making things easier (so each person can do more things)

Full ACK.

>         - having more people able to do each thing (eg, more DAMs,
>           or making it easier for multiple AMs or other DDs to help an
>           individual applicant progress)

Isn't this the point of this thread?  Isn't the reason why this is not
implemented for several years clearly detected?

> In any event, getting angry about it has certainly been tried lots of
> times before, I don't think it's achieved much improvement to date.

Right, just getting angry does not solve anything.

Kind regards


Reply to: