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

Re: Ideas about a GR to fix the DAM

On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 11:16:59PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> 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.

Well, I'm really happy that you can't write something in PL/I and force
me to use it to do my work, too. It goes both ways.

I don't see the point in rewriting jetring in python (or doing anything to
convince James he should be using) at the moment, because I think it needs
to be tested in a more controlled situation first. Compared to testing
and proving the concept, though, a rewrite in python seems less effort
than arguing about it. Though of course, I'm personally a bit biassed
towards trusting python programs more than mixtures of bash and perl, too.

> > 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've seen my comments on this, and presumably my references to mails
about James views (both my explanation [0] and his [1]). Doesn't that already
show that there're others besides James who judge similarly, and that
James has shared his knowledge?

  [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/02/msg00204.html
  [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/02/msg00226.html

> >         - 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?

AFAICS it seems much more about expanding the powers and
responsibilities of one individual than distributing them amongst
multiple individuals. That comes under "removing dependencies" or
"making it easier", not adding more people.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: