Re: Question to all candidates: officiousness
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 05:43:41PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by this question, or what the point is.
I will clarify. AJ obviously feels that it is his prerogative (under
which hat or set of hats, I do not know) to decide which set of
architectures in the archive are worthwhile, and what manner of
supplication or "wowing" is necessary to change his preconceived
notions on these matters.
You may recall the amd64 issue, where numerous reasons were given why
this architecture could not be incorporated officially under exactly the
same criteria as every other architecture which had preceded it.
Possibly there was some "blowing away" that occurred either before,
during, or after the time that AJ was paid a sizable sum of money to do
some work that was arbitrarily deemed necessary for amd64 inclusion by
some unnamed member or members of the ftp-team.
Most candidates seem to think that the kfreebsd port is worthwhile
and should be included in the archive, but AJ seems to have additional
requirements beyond what is listed for release architectures at
http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_policy.html , and though it seems
somewhat strange that the archive inclusion criteria should be stricter
than the release arch criteria, I can see a point to introducing
chicken-egg problems there.
Now it is unclear which hat AJ is wearing when he implies that he is
authorized to decide which architectures are important, by criteria he
decides unilaterally. I am curious as to what the other candidates
think: is it appropriate for him to do this, and, if so, which
positions of authority or achievements have earned him the "moral" right
to do so?
As for the point of my question: I find this behavior to be highly
arrogant and offensive, and will be ranking AJ below NotA because of it.
In order to vote fairly, it is important to know the attitudes of the
other candidates in these matters.
Does that clear up everything for you?
Reply to: