On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:16:34AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > I'd like to ask some questions to the prospecitve project leaders: > 1. Which are Debians top five strengths in your opinion?
In no particular order: Breadth -- we include everything we can, and support whoever we can Freedom -- we're very focussed on free software Openness -- anybody can see what we're doing Quality -- we have good tools and policies and work to maintain them Volunteerism -- we're not dependent on a funding source or a business plan > 2. Where do you identify Debians top five problems? Conflict -- we focus on and exaggerate disagreements to the point where they hinder improvement Hurdles to contributing -- helping out in many areas is difficult, from the time and effort to go through n-m, to getting involved in various subparts of the project after you're a developer; not all of those hurdles are useful Indecisiveness -- we leave things unresolved for extended periods Lack of momentum -- continual improvement begets continual improvement, and that needs to happen at all levels of the proejct > 3. Do you plan to do anything to change the public recognition that > Debian suffers from severe release problems and that its stable > distribution is generally outdated? If so, what? In so far as Debian does have severe release problems, or its stable distribution is generally outdated, I think the public _should_ have that perception. And as far as fixing that perception goes, I think we should fix the underlying problem first, before we expect people to stop thinking there's a problem. That said, I think we're making good progress on that in three ways: first, the release team have a good plan and support for ensuring that past problems don't repeat themselves -- including ensuring that architectures don't have ongoing problems, that the installer remains working properly, and that the security infrastructure is working for etch at release time; second, I think the d-i beta releases for etch can fairly easily be enhanced into something suitable for people who want significantly more frequent releases; and finally I think the stable point releases should be significantly more controllable by 3.1r3, as per the other thread. > 4. In light of the well organised presence of Skolelinux and the > professional presence of Ubuntu at several conferences and exhibitions > do you believe Debian is represented adequately? I can't comment specifically; but in general I'd say that Debian should be represented as well as people want to represent it -- if there are blockages there, such as an inability to get permission to use the Debian trademark, or availability of funds, or ability to announce a presence and find and coordinate people to do the promotion, then that's bad. If it's just that people don't think conferences or exhibitions are worth the effort, it's not such a problem. > 5. Do you see any services for our users or developers missing or > poorly maintained? If so, which and what do you plan to do to > fix this? I've done this in the past, and expect to keep doing so whether elected or not. I guess I don't really see the point of the question. > 6. What is your opinion about the current situation with the backports > and volatile archives? Currently they don't run on projects assets. I'd like to see them integrated into the archive, much as we had a separate section for backports to bo when the libc6 transition was underway. There are various concerns with doing that, many of which I hope the mirror split will mostly alleviate. > 7. What is your opinion about the current situation with the snapshot > archive? Currently it doesn't run on projects assets. It's a useful service. TTBOMK we don't have any debian.org machines that would be suitable to host it, but that's something you (as DSA) can probably answer better than I can anyway; I know I've seen concerns expressed about having machines not running Debian hosting it, as far as "debian.org" status is concerned. Cheers, aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature