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: Release of Debian 1.3 snafus

On Fri, 6 Jun 1997 sacampbe@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca wrote:

<intro deleted>
> 
> Off the top of my head I can think of two area that definitely need to be
> tightened up (I'm sure there are others):
> 1. During pre-release, all changes to frozen must be approved by the testing
>    group.  This will force all changes (even if trivial) to be known by the
>    testers.

Until Bruce came back from vacation this was the case.

> 
> 2. A chain of approval of release must be established. Something like:
>    Testing group -> archive maintainer -> project leader
>    The leader first announces on debian-private so the ftp and web sites
>    can be set up and the announcement to c.o.l.a. can get in the queue.
>    The next day the leader makes the announcement to the rest of the world.
> 
The process that was worked out for this release was similar except that
the top position was "The Release Director". It was my understanding that
Bruce had delegated this authority to Brian.

> Some will call this is bureaucracy and get all bent out of shape. It is
> bureaucracy, but when you get 200 people together you better have at
> least a little or nothing will get done.
> 
I have no problem with chain of command structures. They simply represent
an formal establishment of communications channels.

My perception of this event is that is stems from the fact that the
Project Leader is the only individual with "actual" authority in the
group. Even though Bruce has delegated authority, that authority has only
been "virtual". It is the autocratic nature of this arrangement that I see
at the root of the current comedy of errors.

Don't get me wrong. I am a staunch supporter of Bruce and the single
leader principle that we apparently opperate under. I would simply like to
see delegated authority be "actual" instead of "virtual", requiring of the
Project Leader a minimum of written notification when that delegated
authority is going to be overridden. We can't establish mechanisms for
smoothing the release process, violate those mechanisms, and then expect a
useful outcome.

Thanks for listening,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-_-                                          _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .