On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:42:16PM +0000, Stephen Stafford wrote: > Branden: > You have been seen by many in the past as an abrasive developer.
Yes, but as I noted in another message, this is increasingly a thing of
the *past*, as you seem to have observed.
When evaluating any statement, it is wise to consider the source. This
goes just as much for personal criticisms of me as it does for anything
else.
> Nobody (to my knowledge) has ever faulted your technical ability,
Oh, it happens from time to time, especially if I make some boneheaded
SVN commit. :)
> but your manner has sometimes come under fire. Given that the DPL is,
> in many ways, the representative of Debian to the world would you try
> to moderate your tone, or do you believe that it wouldn't be a
> problem?
I don't believe it would be a problem. Not only am I acutely conscious
of when I'm wearing an "official hat", so to speak, but I have become a
more moderate person in general as I've gotten older and wiser, and
learned to put the follies of Debian developers into proper perspective
relative to things like world politics and the actions of the SCO Group,
Inc. :)
> I have seen some of your dealings as treasurer of SPI, and I have to
> admit that your tone there was never anything but exemplary that I
> saw. So given that you have proven yourself capable of this, do you
> believe that your reputation might affect how people outside the
> project see and deal with you?
Well, the nice thing about my reputation to people outside the project
is that it seems to be grounded more on the work I've done than for the
flames I used to write. :)
*If* some informal polls done by Debian communities that aren't
exclusive to Debian developers are any indication[1][2], I seem to be
viewed pretty favorably.
Also, in encountering people through my job and at trade shows like
LinuxWorld, I am often approached and spoken to pleasantly by people who
think I'm doing a good job with the XFree86 packages (over the past
couple of years they tell me to run for DPL again, too). I'm
occasionally phoned up or emailed out of the blue by people whom *I*
respect, too -- not because they want to gush but because they want my
input on something or to work on some initiative. I can't think of a
single time when such conversations haven't been mutually enthusiastic
(and occasionally pretty long).
I know how unreliable polls and anecdotes can be, and I'm sorry I don't
have anything more rigorous to offer you regarding how I'm perceived by
the larger community. All available data that has come to my attention,
however, seems to slant in a significantly positive direction. I
personally find that cause for cautious optimism, but you'll have to
weigh it for yourself.
> Your platform[1] mentions that you plan to look at release management
> and NM. It doesn't give any details at all though. Do you have any
> specific ideas in mind?
To be honest, not yet, and I don't think I should. The former position
is explicitly delegated, and the latter should be, in my opinion. It's
not my intention to usurp the authority of delegates, but to support and
enable them.
I did lay out a strategy for how I would orient myself with each of the
delegates in my reply to Martin Schulze[3].
I intend to enter the role of DPL without prejudice to the delegates'
roles or the people who occupy them. In my opinion, this is not only
the diplomatic thing to do, it's the sensible thing to do, as to date
the developers have been lacking systematic information about exactly how
many delegates do their jobs. One of the planks of my platform is to
rectify this[4].
I think the best strategy any DPL can employ when dealing with
volunteers -- especially overworked ones -- is to listen, not to bark
orders. One essential difference I see between myself and past DPLs is
that I intend to do a much better job at communicating what I am hearing
to the developers, and to make it easier for the delegates to perform
such communication themselves (wherever possible, through automated
mechanisms that don't place more demands on their time).
> >From my reading of your platform you intend to bring about some (many?)
> procedural changes as well as clarification and formalisation of existing
> procedures. You mention things like revamping the constitution and proposing
> GRs to effect change and improve visibility. One of my concerns with your
> platform is that we will be swamped under procedural details and not have much
> time left for technical excellence. How would you address this concern?
With my dedication to personal openness and visibility as DPL[5], I
think this will be a self-correcting problem. Firstly, I think people
who don't care about infrastructural details will not work on them --
and there are many such people. If, however, we do become swamped with
procedural details, as you put it, I fully expect to hear about it as
DPL. (I can't imagine how I wouldn't.) My monthly reports to the
developers will include mention of any such concerns, and I will solicit
feedback as to whether some procedural initiative should be shelved or
postponed so that some vexing technical problem(s) can be worked on.
I certainly don't find technical work personally offputting. If I had,
I wouldn't have been maintaining our XFree86 packages for the past six
years.
> How many and which of the ideas outlined in your platform do you
> expect to be able to implement and/or work towards if you are NOT
> elected?
Relatively few; many of them are dependent on being privy to the
communication channels that are at present reserved to the DPL. Several
are what I regard as the prerogative of the DPL. I think it would be
likely to cause unnecessary strife and resentment if I were to attempt
to act in the DPL's capacity despite not being elected to that position.
The last item in my platform, though:
I will do everything I can to make the Debian Project a compelling
example to follow.
...I have always strived to do, and will continue to do so. I think the
Debian Project is a great place to contribute my time and energy, and I
expect it will continue to be.
> What do you see as the greatest weakness of the project?
Lack of scalability -- in many respects.
> What new challenges do you plan to present to the project?
I think we need to have the courage to become a little more
sophisticated in our processes. I've heard some people opine that such
development is "bureaucratic" or creates "red tape". Well, done
wrongly, sure. I intend only to add process where it's actually needed,
and only to the degree that's necessary to solve the problem. I fully
expect people to challenge me to justify the details of my proposals if
they are regarded as excessively complex. That's good. No procedure
should be forwarded without an explicit rationale. If, over time, the
rationale becomes inapplicable, the procedure must be re-examined.
The current NM procedure is considerably more formal ("bureaucratic", if
you will), than the system that was in place when I joined in 1998, and
even that was considerably less ad-hoc than the method in use in 1995.
Our 1998 approach was sufficiently informal that it couldn't scale, and
NM had to be shut down. Are we better off now? I think Martin
Michlayr, the current NM front desk, would say so.
> Do you believe that if either Martin or Gergely are elected instead of
> you that you would be able to work with them to achieve the goals you
> outline in your platform?
Given that Gergely stated his intention to immediately resign if
elected[6], I'm going to wuss out on that part of your question.
As to the other part, I'll do the best I can, but despite the
similarities in our platforms, I think Martin and I have pretty
different notions about how the project's infrastructure should work.
If I am not elected, I do not feel I would be justified in attempting to
usurp his approach.
[1] http://www.debianplanet.org/node.php?id=1059&pollresults[1059]=1
[2] http://www.livejournal.com/users/keybuk/9064.html
[3] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200403/msg00157.html
[4] http://people.debian.org/~branden/dpl/campaign/2004/platform.xhtml#s3p1
[5] http://people.debian.org/~branden/dpl/campaign/2004/platform.xhtml#s3p3
[6] http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/platforms/algernon
--
G. Branden Robinson | Lowery's Law:
Debian GNU/Linux | If it jams -- force it. If it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
