On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:41:29PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> 2007/11/19, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>:
> > 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.
> Wrong.
No, I _am_ really happy that you can't write something in PL/I and force me
to use it. Trust me on this.
> If the wool works and we are perfectly able to form a
> group that has one or two members that are competent in this
> programming language it is perfectly the way we should go.
We might be able to form a group and create a tool with such properties,
but it will take time. It takes longer if people sit around complaining
about how it's someone else's responsibility to take the initiative. It
isn't as good if you refuse to take the opinions and concerns of
experienced and knowledgable people into acount.
> > 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.
> Sure. But have you ever met a "normal" person that thinks programming [...]
I'm a pretty experienced programmer, and personally I value my own
opinion of whether a rewrite is worthwhile or not over someone who's
more normal merely because they're a less experienced programmer.
You don't solve social problems by refusing to make reasonable compromises.
Having the software be written in a way that's comprehensible and able to
be modified to suit the needs of the people who are going to use it seems
emminently reasonable to me.
> > 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
> Well, this [1] is quite exactly to years old and says:
> I think in the long term, keyring maintenance should obviously be done
> by more than one person.
> and thus raises the question in what scale "long term" is meant.
I suspect you can get a hint from:
] I'm working on (a) and (b) but I'm not working on (c) because I simply
] don't have time - others are of course welcome to. I've discussed the
] idea with several people in real life, and it's come up in the thread
] on -private. I also believe that with (a) and (b) done there is no
] pressing need for (c) although it'd obviously be nice to have.
> The
> continuos discussion shows that a status report every second year might
Status reports like, say:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/12/msg00010.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/03/msg00018.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.
> I admit I do not understand this deduction.
The point of this thread, according to the original mail was:
"My Idea would be to give Joerg Jaspert full access to the LDAP and
to the keyring, exactly as James Troup has now. [...] Additionally
I think there should be 2 more people added to the DAM which will be
able to DAM approve the applicants."
The infrastructure for maintaining the keyring does not support multiple
maintainers, so the only option we currently have is to replace the
maintainer not add co-maintainers. And we already have multiple people
with access to change LDAP -- that isn't the problem.
As I've said earlier -- last I heard, which was when I was talking to
James and Joerg as DPL at the start of this year -- there weren't any
candidates for additional DAMs. So far, I haven't seen any indication
that's changed.
Does that make the deduction more understandable?
Cheers,
aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature