>> On 24 Mar 2003 15:17:52 -0800,
>> David N Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [ Please leave me CC'ed ]
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> My original point was that people who do not actually exercise
>> their franchise are unlikely to be one of the active set -- and
>> need to be looked at to see if they are indeed inactive. Having
>> inactive members is not itself unhealthy, except it does inflate
>> quorum a trifle, which can be bad in supermajority votes.
> That's fair enough.
>> Additionally, identifying inactive developers would help in
>> deciding which packages need attention; un maintained packages do
>> hurt the project.
>> This is not the place to discuss the rest of my position as
>> evidenced in the log; we can shift to -project for that.
> You go beyond looking at non-voters to pissing on those who
> maintain few packages - calling them a 'net loss' to the project.
> That's a disheartening position from someone so active in Debian.
If you go back and look at what I said, package count never
entered the picture.
> Furthermore, 'package count' is a bad metric in any case, as there
Quite so, it is a piss poor metric, and this argument is a
strawman: you are attacking and destroying a poistrion I never held
> are people who are active in translation, or maybe maintain
> difficult packages, so beyond negativity, your comments don't seem
> to point to any way to actually improve the project, but just
> complain.
Since you have missed the essence of my position, I wonder if
there is any sense in this discussion; you are talking to a non
existent position.
And I did point out what needed to be done minimally:
vote. That was where the discussion started: looking at the
project as a whole, and helping improve DEBIAN_, not just your
packages (however many or few you maintained).
> There's a big difference between saying, accurately, that the
> people who do a lot are much more important to the project, and
> discounting those who, for reasons unbeknownst to you may not be
> that active at any given moment.
What is the rationale for not exercising your franchise,
apart from Raul's stance that inactive developers may not wish to
take part in a decision making process?
It is my feeling that earlier in the project, when it was far
smaller, and less well known, the people participating were
interested in making Debian the best _distribution_ of Linux -- not
just the distribution that had the best packages foo, bar, and baz.
There are a number of infrastructure talks that need be
done -- the RM and QA folk needs dedicated people to help with
fixing bugs in packages *OTHER THAN ONES OWN*; the boot installer
people need coders and testers; we need security folks to enable us
to support testing and retain support for potato longer.
What makes debian great is not a bunch of isolated, cute
software -- what make s it great is consistent, tested, integrated
software. Working on just your packages, indifferent to what the
rest of the project is doing adds to the problems: We have serious
user interface issues with package selection; people adding and
concentrating on their own packages exacerbate that problem.
Sure, there are people who go to extraordinary lengths to
work on these common issue, but it appears to me that the relative
ratio of these folks is declining, as we get more an more people
interested in a narrow area.
I, for one, would be ecstatic to be proven wrong.
Why is faster release schedules (by more people helping fix
bugs), easier customization so that minority sub projects (live CD
images!), better package selection, better ease of use and novice
friendliness, SE Debian, easier ways of getting sub projects
started/maintained not on everyones plate?
Am I the only one, apart from the gentoo/sorcerer crowd, who
feel that innovation in Debian has slowed down? When Joey Hess comes
up with a neat an interesting variation on how to manage source
packages (I do think Adam Heath had an interesting variation as
well), he is castigated for not conforming to the old way?
> Debian acts as a 'stepping stone' for many people - it gives them a
> way to get involved in the free software world without being an
> expert hacker. *Everyone* here started with one package. We need
> to accept that some people will never really contribute more, and
> that others will grow into positions of greater contribution.
> Others, having contributed a lot in the past, maybe decide to step
> back for a while.
As I said, strawman.
manoj
--
"It's Woody Allen's fault," he had said, squeezing his bottle of
Rolling Rock as if it were a hand grip. "He had to go and ruin
romantic love for all the rest of us for all time with his goddamn
lobsters." Ann Beattie
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
