Re: Debian Etch Stable.
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given this isn't a DPL funding initiative, I think you're way off base. It's not only because you subtly outsourced it. subtly ? HAHAHAHAHAHA. 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: On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 01:24:32PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Actually, I believe you'll find that that wasn't even put forward as a metric for the experiment. I didn't write that. In your own words, the experiment was to allocate sufficient funds so that Steve Langasek and Andreas Barth can dedicate a month each to getting etch out on time (and Mon 4 Dec 06 was already given as the release date). If you consider that to be the success condition, it seems it was already a success -- that amount of funds was allocated, for exactly that purpose. It didn't fulfil that condition: Etch didn't release on Mon 4 Dec 06 - or is the next chunk of funding going to repairing the time machine that was broken next week? I think the experiment has even failed to provide useful information it could have, partly due to the refusal to take or request any recognisable measurements. Any future DPL funding initiative could be [...] Given this isn't a DPL funding initiative, I think you're way off base. The above proposal was first posted by the DPL = DPL initiated it = it was a DPL initiative. No amount of moving it between shells, moving it away from developer control, will change that. Further, it's cynical and unrealistic to demand that those unhappy with the experiment to fulfil the DPL's wishlist at this busiest time of year for festivals and so on. [...] You are, of course, free to do what you want, and you don't need to come up with any excuses for that. However, it seemed that it was being set up to be interpreted as cynicism or other nonsense by the dunc-tank's advocates if the bleeding obvious (IT'S THE FESTIVE SEASON) wasn't pointed out. I hope that reporters are smart enough to recognise both that demand and the refusal to report yet as the politicking of a DPL trying to hide the negatives of his decisions. If this were politicking, what makes you think that I'm not suggesting the very thing I'm worried most about, safe in the knowledge that yourself and others will say oh, if aj suggested it, it must be an evil, political idea and I shall do the exact opposite? I don't think that, because there can be no *knowledge* that I would say that falsehood. I remember that aj has attacked a proposal merely because it involved me, but I don't do the same in reverse. I look at proposals on their merits, even those who I've disagreed with in the past. My memory probably isn't good enough to keep score like that anyway. For example, I supported terminating this DPLship early because I think the DPL decisions to date were mostly poor (as I explained at the time), not as a personal attack against aj. I don't know and have never met aj socially, and I don't even remember any real-time messaging interactions. Maybe the next proposal will be brilliant - we'll see when it comes - but the dunc-tank sucks in so many ways. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Etch Stable.
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 08:40:41AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: I would further expect that you didn't try to pollute the experiment result with stuff like the mail starting this thread. From the tone of that mail, it indicated clearly that for you the experiment was over, and that you called for experiment oponents to be remotivated for that. Sorry, but again, this cannot happen until the final report is there, and your mail was all but a good idea. Dunc-Tank's activities for the etch release are almost over, aside from some logistical things that still need to be completed. If you're worried about people being payed to do work, and not doing it because you're not being paid, well, that's ceasing very shortly. If it's the concept of an experiment at all that bothers you -- ie, doing something that some people (including yourself) don't agree with, that might not work, that's controversial, that hasn't been 100% thought out and proven to be correct and already tried elsewhere -- well, it's fair enough that you should continue being upset. Though I think you'll have trouble finding somewhere in free software that people are that conservative that you won't continue getting upset. Personally, if you're already upset by things I've said or done, I wouldn't recommend you rely on any report I might work on to make you feel that much better. :-/ Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[OT] time machine | was Debian Etch Stable.
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 10:19 +, MJ Ray wrote: It didn't fulfil that condition: Etch didn't release on Mon 4 Dec 06 - or is the next chunk of funding going to repairing the time machine that was broken next week? There's no need for a time machine to release on Mon 4 Dec 06. All what you nee is a slow RM and enough time to wait for Monday 4th December 4006 ... ;-)) Regards -- hgb PS: IMHO that whole discussion (this thread) is going to get (or got already) ridiculous, since the legal owner of any amount of money does not have to share the reason, on why it was spent to two or more individuals, with anybody else in the world ... or did anyone ask FSF for the reason they paid Ian in the first year of debian (IIRC) ? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian Etch Stable.
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 12:48:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 08:40:41AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: I would further expect that you didn't try to pollute the experiment result with stuff like the mail starting this thread. From the tone of that mail, it indicated clearly that for you the experiment was over, and that you called for experiment oponents to be remotivated for that. Sorry, but again, this cannot happen until the final report is there, and your mail was all but a good idea. Dunc-Tank's activities for the etch release are almost over, aside from some logistical things that still need to be completed. If you're worried about people being payed to do work, and not doing it because you're not being paid, well, that's ceasing very shortly. Well, i worry about long ranging negative effects, but that is hardly the point. If it's the concept of an experiment at all that bothers you -- ie, doing something that some people (including yourself) don't agree with, Nope, i was in favour of paying the RMs, altough the sum paid in the end seem to be way bigger than what was lead to believe at first, but i would have paid for it with actual debian money. that might not work, that's controversial, that hasn't been 100% thought out and proven to be correct and already tried elsewhere -- well, it's fair enough that you should continue being upset. Though I think you'll have trouble finding somewhere in free software that people are that conservative that you won't continue getting upset. That is beside the point. Personally, if you're already upset by things I've said or done, I wouldn't recommend you rely on any report I might work on to make you feel that much better. :-/ Well, as said, i think this is a very good time to make an actual, third-party and impartial sociological study of the impact of this experiment, as said, there where various people doing such studies of the debian community, why don't you, as DPL, contact one of them, or more, and ask them if they want to investigate the event, and provide us real data, instead of a partisan one-sided report ? Will you dare to do this, and maybe find results you are not confortable with ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
