On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:35:28 +0300, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Saturday 29 July 2006 21:00, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:27:57 +0300, George Danchev
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > On Saturday 29 July 2006 18:51, Manoj Srivastava wrote: -cut--
>> >
>> >> It could go either way, of course, but I was referring to the
>> >> difference between due diligence of a group, as opposed to an
>> >> individual; potentially, a team is only as strong as the weakest
>> >> link.
>> >
>> > `weakest link' is not always the case for each package
>> > release. It might happens that only `strongest links' has been
>> > involved in a package release also.
>>
>> I am not sure I understand what that last sentence means.
> I'm arguing that yours "a team is only as strong as the weakest
> link" is similar to the conclusion of "an individual is only as
> strong as its worst characteristic". See the deadlock ?
The difference being that I am not arguing for mandatory
single developer for each package status, you know.
>> > Furthermore, a single maintainer could also has a `bad day' and
>> > produce a bad package release. So, I don't believe there is
>> > unified formula to measure how much a team is being strong, it
>> > all boils down to have a good communication inside the group. You
>> > will hadly have a good rollover with a single maintainer..., well
>> > except NMUers and Hijackers.
>>
>> I am not sure you have made the thesis that a team is always to be
>> preferred, to the point of foisting teams on people by force.
> I doubt there are people who believe in any ultimate decision wrt
> team maintenance and forcing that on others, at least no normative
> doc says that. It it merely like if people think they can benefit
> from a team-based maintenace then they assemble a team. Yes, you
> have good and bad teams, good and bad individuals, and any other
> combinations thereof.
That is fine. I entered this thread in response to various
ideas being floated around about mandating team development only. If
that proposal is off the table, I have little of consequence to add
to this thread.
manoj
--
You will have a long and unpleasant discussion with your supervisor.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
