I'm wondering who's "right" between Lucas and you.
> > The "statu quo proposal", i.e "things aren't that broken in most
> > teams, we can just solve problems in an ad-hoc fashion where problems
> > occur" ?
>
> Judging by history, I don't think our current approach is exactly
> flourishing. We've mentioned sysadmins, list admins, web admins, all of
> those had breakages. We haven't mentioned bug admins, ftp admins, docs
> admins, key admins, account admins, but all of them had fairly major
> issues too. It's hard for me to recall any other major infrastructure
> team in Debian where I can point and say that they have always functioned
> fine, i.e. they only had technical issues (rather than manpower issues).
Lucas writes about "that broken" team, you write about teams which "had
breakages" and "had fairly major issues". If there are really 8 teams
which were at one point "that broken", I suppose your proposition is
interesting. Would you estimate that all of the teams you mentioned are
or were at some point broken to the point of being unable to accept good
candidates or justify rejection of bad candidates?
I am curious to know more about these teams... from the teams that
recovered, what was the problem in these teams? How were they fixed
(internally/externally?)?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
