On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:12:42PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote: > > Where are the minutes of the discussion, where are detailed explanation of > > the > > problems trying to be sovled ? Where is a call to alternative solution ? > > Where > > is a call for help from the arch porters for security and infrastructure > > issues ? Given that things are like they are in big part because such help > > was > > rejected in the paste, how do you not see this as a decision which doesn't > > care for the non-tier1 ports ? > > I don't see it as a decision yet. That's the whole point. If I thought it > was a "it is too late to change it now, deal with it" kind of process, I > would be just as steamed as you appear to be.
Since when are you following these issues ? and what experience do you have with how debian works ? And did you read Anthony's post on how this worked out. > > > Since it is a RFC, that is not needed, as we ARE obviously going over all > > > that anyway, and trying to do it beforehand *is* an utterly useless effort > > > the way Debian mailinglist threads usually work. > > > > Doing it this way is an utter lack of respect for the debian maintainers not > > in the inner circle. > > Well, if it is done the other way, you get utter lack of respect from > maintainers that can't even read the damn thing twice and think about it > before firing their guns (and you end up with a flamewar just as well). Yep, as for NEW processing, lack of response from ftp-masters, lack of response from the centralized buildd admins when porters propose their help, or the AMD64 flamewar we had all those month ago, and so on ... It is always the same scheme, and then we are accused of being ungratefull bitchers, putting the poor ftp-masters or who not under stress and they being volunteers and all. But are we not all volunteers ? And do we not all participate in this together ? But when there is a RC issue, they expect us to slave on it until it is solved, and then complain about the non-timeliness of it. > They chose the "post a brief report and answer everything else when it comes > up" way. Some of it was poorly worded, but that's actually something I have > learned to expect in Debian and I try to ignore it as much as I can, so that > I can focus on the technical stuff (it is not like I would have done it any > better :P). Yep, but is it a symptom of a profund lack of understanding (or caring), of how these things are received by the rest of the DDs, and a dismissal of the work they do who is somehow considered as less important, or in the case of the minor arches, as maybe troublesome even in light of this report. > Let's fix this proposal so that the tier-2 archs are actually useable (even > if that means we need tier-3 and tier-4), and see what more we can improve > about it... Yep, but that means a bit of humility from their part first, and an aknowledgement of their mistake, as well as an explanation on how this came to be in correspondence of all the help they rejected from the arch porters part. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
