On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:24:36AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote: > > So propose something that implements it, rather than implementing > > something different and then saying we can change it later. It's always > > easier to change things before they start. > > This is not true in general in the free software world, and the GR process > is even less suited to create a better proposal by having severals rounds > of discussion (due to the delays it induces). > > Don't let the perfect be the ennemy of the good.
Raphaël, please, please stop considering people that do not agree with you like children, it's utterly annoying. People disagreeing with this GR do NOT THINK this GR creates something _better_ than the current state. You have so few arguments that you are repeating ad nausea dull platitudes to try to make other people feel guilty. But what you don't get is that (1) it irritates people (2) the people you are answering to don't consider DM as an improvement at all. So please stop harping on. > > I can see voting for something that says "we empower the DAM and FD to > > create a new class of Debian Developers who don't have general upload > > rights, and leave all the details to them." > > If all those people were happily working towards that goal we wouldn't even > have this discussion here. May I remind you that we're all volunteers and > if you come up with such a GR, most likely none of those people will > feel concerned about implementing it? dull dull dull. > Really, this GR (despite the appearance due to the initial policy being > worded in the GR) is not about implementation details but about a general > direction that we want to have or not. No it's not. General directions are tested through large scale experiments (like it happens for sponsoring before). Note that nobody needs that GR to implement a DM-like queue. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpEhoxviYoDg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
