Re: Deity project schedule problems

[Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>]

> >> Brian, I certainly was under a misapprehension regarding the status
> >> of the Deity team; had I realized that they are not officially part
> >> of the Debian project; I would have started work on this a long
> >> time ago.
> 
> Brian> People have been complaining about dselect for years and nobody
> Brian> was doing anything.  I went ahead and put together a team to do
> Brian> something about it on my own.  It's for anything but Debian.
> Brian> It is intended to eventually replace dselect.

By the way, that should have read "It's _not_ for anything but Debian.".
I thought I checked that pretty carefully, but I guess not.


>         I think, however (no offence) that Debian should get off its
>  collective butt and fix dselect. Now that you have clarified that
>  Deity is essetially a friendly third party trying to fix a critical
>  eyesore for Debian, I am questioning whether Debian can afford to
>  shelve off such a critical effort to a third party (no matter how
>  benevolent).

I feel the same way about dselect.  I do feel, however, that things can
be written by semi-independant groups without any problems.


>         I think Debian needs to initiate an effort which is answerable
>  to Debian, and have the Debian project at large set deadlines,
>  etc, if for nothing else than to help Debian plan for the next
>  release(s).

Unfortunately, you cannot set deadlines for volunteers and expect them
to put their lives on the line for it (so to speak).  It's the nature of
the beast for which we work.


>         I personally am also uneasy about the closed doors policy of
>  Deity. I understood the reasons offered, about distractions, noise,
>  and shifting specs, but I am not quite convinced that the solution
>  proposed was any better. In my experience, for what that counts,
>  independent cabals not answerable to anybody have usually resulted in
>  cost and schedule overruns. Your mileage may vary.

Deity is not "closed" in that we've tried to isolate ourselves.  Anybody can
post to the deity list.  Such has been encouraged over and over.  We've
posted our proposals, taken feedback, and made adjustments based on that
feedback.

The only parts of Deity that is closed is membership to the list and access
to the source code.  The list is closed because I don't want too much noise
interefering with the work that is ongoing.  We all know how much noise
appears on an open list.

The source is closed because stock CVS doesn't allow read-only access.  I
think it's obvious why we can't open write-access to everybody.

I don't consider this a "closed doors policy".


>         There already is a rift between the rarefied levels of Debian
>  and Deity; and I think it behooves Debian to think defensively and
>  maybe start thinking about fallback options.

Debian already has a working fallback.  Dselect is functional if not pretty.
It does not need to be replaced because it doesn't "do the job"; only because
people find it difficult to use.


>         I hope we may be able to do that amicably.

I don't have any problem with it.  What I _do_ have a problem with is
people interfering with something I worked very hard to put together.
Cooperation is great.  Support is wonderful.  Additional leadership
is deadly.

                                          Brian
                                 ( bcwhite@verisim.com )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy!"...  until you can find a rock.


--
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 .