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: Deity project schedule problems

> I never asked for "source" because I was led to understand that there was
> nothing but a spec (which I was encouraged to look at and give feedback)
> and that the source would be built once the spec was "OKed". I understood
> the need for the "semi-closedness" of the group. As expected, others
> don't.

Apparently, the new CVS has the read-only patches in it.  I'll be installing
that as long as there is no way it can impact the machine (since it is a
production machine that runs several corporate websites).


> To Brian: I agree with most everything you said (even several of the snide
> remarks) but I can't agree that Deity is "outside" Debian. I do agree that
> the product that is produced by the Deity group should be considered as
> "upstream" although one of the authors may very well become the Debian
> maintainer. However, to my knowledge, everyone working on the project is a
> Debian Maintainer, or otherwise "connected" to the project and you are the
> only one I have heard from who doesn't think Diety is a Debian group.
> Please reconsider this possition.

I look at it this way:  Deity is being written _for_ Debian, but not _by_
Debian.

The reason for this is simple.  Debian has a huge amount of bureaucracy.
With several hundred people all making requests, it becomes unmanageable.
I will not subject my team to that.  My primary jobs in this project are
to insulate them from politics and to provide the resources they need.  This
will help them be as productive as they can be.

Yes, I did not notice that Deity's chief programmer was not contributing.
That was my fault and an admitted mistake.  However, upon being made aware
of this on Friday, I said I'd have it fixed by Monday and I did.

I will not subject my team to the whims of the project that go to and fro
with the wind.  That would be counterproductive, to say the least.  We talk
to the developers and users and solicit their feedback, but we won't be
pushed by politics.  You cannot rule by committee, and Debian is one large
committee in many ways.

I don't see any difference in the final outcome between developing _for_
Debian and developing _by_ Debian except that the former will get done in
less time and with a better end result.

I will not adjust my position because Bruce or anybody else wants be to
with one exception.  I work for the Deity team and will do what they decide
is the best way for them to accomplish the goals we have set out.  To
date, that desire has been to have "space" in which to do their job without
interference.  In other words, feedback is given when it is asked for and
desireable, not when it has no effect but to add confusion to the pot.

Management should work for the developers, not the other way around.

In the end, the people providing the feedback prefer this too, since that
way they see their feedback being acted upon instead of ignored (even if it
is only ignored because it is not applicable at that time).

                                          Brian
                                 ( bcwhite@verisim.com )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they're not.



--
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 .