The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 1. RFD: Reorganization of the Debian Project

On Dec 6, cjf@netaxs.com (Chris Fearnley) wrote:
> 'Vociferous Mole wrote:'
> >
> >[This started as a short reply to Chris, and developed into
> >a long boring ramble. You have been warned.]
> 
> Do you mean a reply to my idea of developers having veto power over
> packages and using 3 weeks or some similar time frame for moving a
> package if it wasn't vetoed?

Yeah, that was the one.

> I agree that releases are important.  In my veto scheme, the releases
> could come every 3 or 4 months as now.

Ok, I thought you were moving stuff into stable on a more or less continuous
basis.

> The "goals" for new releases have been vague (in the sense that they
> had not been stamped on Brian's list) and unenforceable (which is good
> -- it's the way I like it)  The problem as I see it is how to agree
> upon goals and implement them given the nature of our developer
> community (global, some real busy this week, some novice some
> experienced, etc.).  

That nature is *exactly* why the goals need to be fixed *long* (a few
months) before the release date. There have been several multi-week
periods where I have had 0 time to spend on Debian, and I'm sure
it happens to many others as well. We need to say Release 1.3 is
going to feature x, y, and z, and is going to be released on
April 1 (or whatever date is picked). X, y, and z need to be definable
*now*, so that everybody affected has sufficient time to work
on them. We should probably also say Release 1.4 is going to have
a, b, and c, which are maybe not so definable, but will tell us where
we're going. 

> I now think the best way to accomplish my goal here is to simply add
> an optional pseudo-header (Severity:) to the bug reporting system.

I think this is a good idea.

Steve Greenland
-- 
The Mole - I think, therefore I scream 

	 "When anyone says `theoretically,' they really mean `not really.'"
[David Parnas]


--
Please respect the confidentiality of material on the debian-private list.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com