Re: Debian Etch Stable.
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: Personally, I'd say that now would be the time for any anti-payment people to say we can do this better, and look, we'll prove it, and make up their own target date for etch, and demonstrate how much energy and Now if only you could understand that we don't give a shit about the release date, that would be a great step forward. Only quality matters. JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Etch Stable.
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: Now if only you could understand that we don't give a shit about the release date, that would be a great step forward. Only quality matters. Quality is not, and has never been, the question. Given how one of the two release managers treated some of the RC bugs, quality is the question. JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Etch Stable.
Anthony Towns wrote: Personally, I'd say that now would be the time for any anti-payment people to say we can do this better, and look, we'll prove it, and make up their own target date for etch, and demonstrate how much energy and I hereby set December 6th 2007 as release date. With help of many volunteers the Debian project may be able to release earlier, though. Regards, Joey -- A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems. Paul Erdös -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Etch Stable.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:11:31AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: Personally, I'd say that now would be the time for any anti-payment people to say we can do this better, and look, we'll prove it, and make up their own target date for etch, and demonstrate how much energy and Now if only you could understand that we don't give a shit about the release date, that would be a great step forward. Only quality matters. Kindly speak for yourself. I happen to give a shit about the release date, since not releasing on time, and releasing with outdated software is one of the last points that our critics have left. I like the idea of being able to tell them to shut up with this point. The other critics' point that we have successfully disabled is our unfriendly installer. The new Debian installer positively rocks. Now, people need to notice that. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Etch Stable.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:47:53PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 08:38:05AM +0100, Alexis Sukrieh wrote: Anthony Towns a ?crit : Personally, I'd say that now would be the time for any anti-payment people to say we can do this better, and look, we'll prove it, and make up their own target date for etch, and demonstrate how much energy and effort can be mustered just by having a good idea and good people and putting them together to get a goal achieved. As the DPL who set up the experiment we are talking about, I understand your anger against the so called anti-payment people, but please take into consideration the following: I'm not angry. I just think now's the perfect opportunity for people who think paying people isn't or shouldn't be what Debian's about to demonstrate that there's an alternative that better achieves this particular goal. In particular starting now has the benefit that while there's still a lot to do, the licensing arguments are already dealt with, The licensing arguments has not been dealt with, due to a set of circumstances you where also partly responsible for, we are now in a worse mess than in august, and the vote resulted in a situation where the voters where deluded about what they voted, and the RMs where forced to give out a statement where they directly contradict the text of the vote, and nobody is really interested in ever hearing about non-free firmware anymore. Consider the lost oportunity, we could have had a good resolution, which we could have used as a basis to approach upstream of problematic firmwares, but instead we have a mess, which punishes those vendors who did act on our contact last fall, and favours those who did nothing. I was personally going to lead that effort, but given how i was handled, and how i was insulted on irc for trying to find a good resolution, and negotiating with all parties, trying to find a middle ground between those of the kernel team who said they would have left if the non-free firmware was removed, and those strong non-free removal proponents. And all this to end in this mess, and being repeteadly insulted by my fellow DDs, there is no way you will get me involved in this kind of stuff anymore. And there is a parallel in this experiment thingy. It resulted in such a motivation killer that it was more destructive than any other possible path, and will have long term consequences. You cannot engage in such actions, and then act as if nothing happened, and say : now it is your turn to prove it was a bad idea, and so to cleverly get everyone to work on the goal you have fixed. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Etch Stable.
Marc Haber a écrit : Otoh, I see a truckload of unpaid DDs vituperating and spreading bad mood around the project. _That's_ the real harm that was caused - very indirectly - by dunctank. Ok, so you want to count bad-mood seeds? Telling what is an appropriate behaviour or not - just as if getting paid gives you more authority - does not spread good mood neither. -- Alexis Sukrieh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Etch Stable.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 06:15:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:11:31AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: Personally, I'd say that now would be the time for any anti-payment people to say we can do this better, and look, we'll prove it, and make up their own target date for etch, and demonstrate how much energy and Now if only you could understand that we don't give a shit about the release date, that would be a great step forward. Only quality matters. Quality is not, and has never been, the question. The question is whether we can hit our quality target without forcing our users to put up with obsolete software -- either the previous release's because we keep delaying the release date, or the forthcoming release's because we have an overly extended freeze. One way to help on this, would have been for example to have Steve Langasek to actually cooperate with the kernel team when it was drafting the non-free resolution back in august, instead of going its own inflamatory way, ignoring everyone, and ensuring a month long flamewar which resulted in a mess, thus echoing a preceding such event, with Steve's disastrous communication about the vancouver event. You where part of the vancouver discussion, and well, the methodology that failed back then, is strangely repeated in how you handled this experiment, with obvious similar effect (months of flamewar, and demotivation of core DDs). Maybe you should take time to reflect on what you did, and learn something from it. If you manage to do that, the experiment would indeed have served something :). I would be, and i guess others would be too, very interested in your self-analysis of how you handled this problem, and what you learned from it. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Etch Stable.
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: [...] It might be that many of the anti-payment people are actually also just not that interested in getting the release out (or are even opposed to it), though. And I've been told they're probably too cynical to try something like the above anyway, so it's probably unlikely. And what's more, I've been told that they're probably made of straw! In the context of an experiment to find out whether paying people to do Debian work can be useful, it'd certainly provide some useful information as to whether there are better alternatives for encouraging contributions and getting things done. The release was the only metric put forward for the experiment, despite various requests. The experiment failed to do the release. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Etch Stable.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006, Anthony Towns wrote: Personally, I'd say that now would be the time for any anti-payment people to say we can do this better, and look, we'll prove it, and make up their own target date for etch, and demonstrate how much energy and effort can be mustered just by having a good idea and good people and putting them together to get a goal achieved. It looks to me that you are now asking others to set up the experimental protocol you failed to deliver when the experiment was being discussed. As of now, anything that might happen can be reused for a Dunc-Tank PR explaining how much the experiment helped. Nowhere have I seen an official statement, explicit or implied, that Dunc-Tank will be a failure if XYZ happens, hence I fail to see how the so-called anti-payment people could be motivated to do anything yet. Please correct me if such a statement exists. Regards, -- Sam. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Etch Stable.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:56:33AM +, MJ Ray wrote: In the context of an experiment to find out whether paying people to do Debian work can be useful, it'd certainly provide some useful information as to whether there are better alternatives for encouraging contributions and getting things done. The release was the only metric put forward for the experiment, despite various requests. Actually, I believe you'll find that that wasn't even put forward as a metric for the experiment. As per [0], it wasn't even the primary goal of the payments. One of the major arguments against changing the rules of the game is that paying some people and not paying others will discourage (some of) the people who don't get paid from contributing. When people are reviewing this experiment and working out whether to try similar things in the future, whether within Debian or elsewhere, I'd expect one of the things they'll consider is whether the people who claim to be demotivated now were really going to contribute much more otherwise. This is, IMO, a fairly unique opportunity to demonstrate just how much contribution is being lost due to jealousy or unfairness or whathaveyou. Obviously, there's no requirement for anyone to take advantage of that opportunity, but if I thought paying people was a bad idea even in principle, I'd be making the most of this opportunity to prove that I was right. Actions speak louder than words and all that. Cheers, aj [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/10/msg00027.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Etch Stable.
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now if only you could understand that we don't give a shit about the release date, that would be a great step forward. Only quality matters. Kindly speak for yourself. I happen to give a shit about the release I speak for (most of) the so-called anti-payment people. JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Etch Stable.
Anthony Towns wrote Personally, I'd say that now would be the time for any anti-payment people to say we can do this better, and look, we'll prove it I've been told they're probably too cynical to try... Well, one of the main criticisms against the experiment was that it might de-motivate developers by making them feel less valued. Asking them now to prove they are not cynical by demonstrat[ing] how much energy and effort can be mustered seems somewhat unfair. Now I'm a newcomer[1], not even a DD, so maybe I should have kept quiet. But I aim to be a DD one day, and I hope that by the time I'm ready Debian will still be something I want to be involved with. Personally I'm unsure about dunk-tank. On the one hand, unpredictable release dates and out-of-date packages are just about the only criticisms that are ever raised against Debian - so it's great that someone is trying out new ideas. But the cost in terms of the loss of developers' goodwill etc. is immense. Can any resulting improvement to the release schedule really justify this schism between developers? As I said, I'm a newcomer, and this is (roughly) what was said when I explained to my wife why I wanted to spend the odd hour in the evening in front of a computer screen: Me: I like the Debian project, and I think I'd fit in there as a developer. My wife: But you won't get paid? Me: No. I want to do it because I think they are doing a worthwhile job, and there's none of the c**p associated with my day job. My wife: So no-one gets paid for it?. And I think that hits the nail on the head - we are all willing to work for nothing on something worthwhile, providing we are all in the same boat. [1] http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Etch Stable.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 12:11:07PM +0100, Sam Hocevar wrote: It looks to me that you are now asking others to set up the experimental protocol you failed to deliver when the experiment was being discussed. As of now, anything that might happen can be reused for a Dunc-Tank PR explaining how much the experiment helped. As far as any hypothetical PR is concerned, vocal critics of the Dunc-Tank procedure declined to contribute any effort to getting the release out sooner, even to demonstrate how effective Debian can be in the absence of paid work seems like it would be entirely sufficient. I don't really see the point of caring about PR for Dunc-Tank though -- from Debian's POV it's a separate project, so it can say what it likes and if it lies to the press it'll pay the price soon enough, and from Dunc-Tank's POV, it needs to fulfill its various obligations -- eg, a thorough post-etch report on what happened -- before it even starts thinking about promoting itself to do new things in the future. But if it turns out there really is a huge cost to paying people, it seems to me like it'd be a lot easier to do a PR saying this is what development looks like with money, this is what community development looks like without money with the latter being obviously a lot more effective than the former. And you already know exactly how effective the former is in this case, so you just have to beat that. Nowhere have I seen an official statement, explicit or implied, that Dunc-Tank will be a failure if XYZ happens, hence I fail to see how the so-called anti-payment people could be motivated to do anything yet. Please correct me if such a statement exists. As an experiment, the only way it can be a failure is if it doesn't teach us anything, and personally I think there's already plenty to be learnt from this, so I don't think that's a question. As to whether anything similar should be done in future, I'm going to continue to reserve judgement on that until etch is out, and there's a chance to consider the exercise in its entirety, with all the results in. You're not in any way obligated to do the same, of course. To be clear: I'm well aware that there are a number of people who don't agree or approve of the Dunc-Tank project -- whether in concept or merely in execution -- who are working on getting the release out at our usual quality as soon as possible in spite of that difference of opinion. There's nothing wrong with that, and I'm not suggesting that they need to put it any more effort than they otherwise might for their opinion to matter. But there are at least some people who are specifically contributing less, whether as a deliberate protest against payments, or simply because the project's doing things that don't interest them as much as it might otherwise. This is a chance to turn that around, take the momentum from the Dunc-Tank project and put it towards not only helping Debian, but convincing other developers and free software hackers that free, voluntary contributions are vastly better than even trying to pay people. And hey, maybe it won't work first go, but so what? Anyone who's going to look beyond didn't make 4th Dec release for Dunc-Tank will surely do the same for an unpaid endeavour, if the people undertaking it are serious about it. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: Debian Etch Stable.
Anthony Towns wrote: As far as any hypothetical PR is concerned, vocal critics of the Dunc-Tank procedure declined to contribute any effort to getting the release out sooner, even to demonstrate how effective Debian can be in the absence of paid work seems like it would be entirely sufficient. AJ, thanks. I thought I'd help a bit with the release now the fuck-tank madness is over, but you've just convinced me to make my own get some sleep experiment last longer. Thank you so much for keeping me relaxed. -- Josselin Mouette/\./\ Do you have any more insane proposals for me? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Etch Stable.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 06:15:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:11:31AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: Personally, I'd say that now would be the time for any anti-payment people to say we can do this better, and look, we'll prove it, and make up their own target date for etch, and demonstrate how much energy and Now if only you could understand that we don't give a shit about the release date, that would be a great step forward. Only quality matters. Quality is not, and has never been, the question. The question is whether we can hit our quality target without forcing our users to put up with obsolete software -- either the previous release's because we keep delaying the release date, or the forthcoming release's because we have an overly extended freeze. Which is why we release with gnome 2.14. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Etch Stable.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 07:58:50PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: Which is why we release with gnome 2.14. I don't understand. Do you consider this to be a good thing or a bad thing? Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
