On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 08:00:43PM +0000, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 06:48:56PM +0000, Anthony Towns wrote… > > … quite a lot of things that I won't quote for brevity. > > I agree fully that a jetring-based (or anything alike) approach would > be much appreciated. That would solve the fact that the debian-keyring > package is horribly outdated and many more things. I agree that many > things you describe in your structural changes _are_ appealing. I also > believe that what you propose is quite right, and definitely the good > way to do things. > > Though, you skip a tiny little detail: how do you will make this real? > Not technically, I believe all those things you describe are technically > trivial. I mean socially. We have the current issue that: > > 1. James doesn't feel he is a delegate, because he predates the > constitution (it awfully sounds like a “the rules convenientely > only apply to others” btw). > > 2. James doesn't trust Joerg, and I believe doesn't trust a lot of > people to be up to the task, so he will likely reject many of the > proposals that will be made to him about this issue. > > 3. We had a discussion at Debconf8 with James about NM, and he didn't > thought he was doing a bad job, he doesn't _think_ he is a > bottleneck. And at the time he was kind of right, only 2 NMs were > waiting for him or sth like that, Joerg was the complete blocker > (and it has been true until sth like 2 weeks ago or so), so he was > rejecting the delays on the “over-administrative-thing” NM has > become since he created the concept (at the time it was a > James-phone-call-at-home, no surprise the current form is quite a > shock to him), and on Joerg. > > Note that I believe this is unfair, Joerg and James have _both_ > been major blockers in the NM queue. And like always when 2 people > are overloaded, they aren't at the same time, so it's likely that > every NM has to wait on _both_. What I see is that each one is > rejecting the issue on the other. And that nobody dares to tell > this truth: none of them is up to the task 100% of the year. And > we do need to accept new contributors on a regular basis. > > 4. At least the 3 last DPL, plus now sam tried to address that, and > well, I'm not sure it's even moving in any direction right now.
5. James isn't following Debian as a Community for some years (I
mean, I don't know if he even _reads_ lists) and it's a big issue
for someone supposed to act as a DAM. the DAM is supposed to
_know_ DDs a bit. DAM is a bit Debian's Human Resources, and
James is all but a public figure nowadays.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpfBeG91o58q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
