On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 07:11:08PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Richard Hecker wrote:
While consensus might exist that eliminating bureaucracy is
good, division of labor can be a good thing too. I do not think you
have established the need to combine the FD and DAM tasks. Are
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 07:11:08PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
No, what is bureaucratic is having to wait one month for FD to review one
application, just to say `hey it's complete`, and pass it to the DAM. Then
wait
another month. I don't see the point in it
On Fri Jul 03 10:54, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
I definitely *don't* agree that there's justification for automatically
merging the FD into DAM.
OK, you have a point. However, as long as one of the teams (e.g. FD) stops
duplicating the same task, and the other one is added more members,
In the midst of the huge discussion started at [1], a specific
proposal [2] did not appear to have received much counter arguments,
namely: merging DAM with FD (both CC-ed).
I advanced that proposal because I consider it offers the following
advantages:
- less bureaucracy: the _decision_ about
Richard Hecker wrote:
While consensus might exist that eliminating bureaucracy is
good, division of labor can be a good thing too. I do not think you
have established the need to combine the FD and DAM tasks. Are
you claiming the DAMs are too bureaucratic?
No, what is bureaucratic is having
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 09:53:16AM -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
In the midst of the huge discussion started at [1], a specific
proposal [2] did not appear to have received much counter arguments,
namely: merging DAM with FD (both CC-ed).
snip...
Lack of
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 07:34:12PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
OTOH, I'm not sure merging DAM and FD is something that will change
the frace from NM, but for sure, it's a step in the good direction.
Ah, right, I forgot to add this disclaimer to the first post. I've
never claimed, nor
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Richard Hecker wrote:
While consensus might exist that eliminating bureaucracy is
good, division of labor can be a good thing too. I do not think you
have established the need to combine the FD and DAM tasks. Are
you claiming the DAMs are too bureaucratic?
Richard Hecker wrote:
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
No, what is bureaucratic is having to wait one month for FD to review one
application, just to say `hey it's complete`, and pass it to the DAM.
Then wait
another month. I don't see the point in it being reviewed twice if FD
has no say
in
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Richard Hecker wrote:
While consensus might exist that eliminating bureaucracy is
good, division of labor can be a good thing too. I do not think you
have established the need to combine the FD and DAM tasks. Are
you claiming the DAMs
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Don't you think that there's some sense in listening to what Emilio
says, whithout immediately minimizing his arguments, since he has
already been at least 4 times more useful to Debian than you were during
the last 8 years?
- Lucas
I did listen. That is why it was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02-07-2009 18:15, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 02/07/09 at 12:05 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Richard Hecker wrote:
While consensus might exist that eliminating bureaucracy is good,
division of labor can be a good
12 matches
Mail list logo
