headers
Manoj Srivastava | 1 Apr 2008 06:28
X-Face
Face
Picon
Favicon

Re: Technical committee resolution

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:47:42 -0300, Martín Ferrari <martin.ferrari <at> gmail.com> said: 

> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:46 AM, MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop> wrote:
>> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta <at> debian.org> wrote:

>> >  better job of them than other candidates, why deprive the project
>> >  due Clint's law of pointless limitations? [...]
>> 
>> I feel that the above personalisation of argument is unhelpful.
>> 
>> I don't believe that we should limit people to one hat, but limiting
>> people to one hat *of this type* might be helpful and merits further
>> consideration.  What is "this type"?  Probably we need to re-sort
>> http://www.debian.org/intro/organization>  to decide that, if people
>> http://www.debian.org/intro/organization>  feel it's a good idea.

> I fail to understand why Manoj sees this as such a silly idea, and it

        Because the number of hats does not seem to be a good predictor
 for performance -- at least, not for a low number of hats.  There are
 better objective measure that would ensure hastening of the glacial
 pace and lack of follow through th tech ctte has.

        Deciding things based on number of groups people are members of
 seems an arbitrary criteria, and little better than other
 similar rule I also posted about.

> doesn't look good that he disregards ideas in that way, when he's a
> interested party.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 18 comments |
headers
Manoj Srivastava | 1 Apr 2008 06:34
X-Face
Face
Picon
Favicon

Re: Technical committee resolution

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:17:14 +0200, Josip Rodin <joy <at> entuzijast.net> said: 

> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 04:55:49PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > than to keep arguing subtle points about judgement.
>> 
>> Again, your description of your previous posts seems somewhat more
>> flattering than the posts themselves.  Subtle points of judgement
>> while continuing to hector away on other people's lack thereof does
>> not seem to fit.
>> 
>> I'd be less irritated were your posts less condescending.

> I suppose you could consider my opinions an act of patronizing because
> I was telling you how I think that you should behave (or rather, how I
> think you shouldn't behave). I'm sorry if I offended you, but I
> thought that I didn't cross the line of decency in my posts.

        Yup. We have both informed each other that we think the other
 should not be behaving in the way they are.  Doesn't seem to have any
 impact on the bahviours of either of us.

        Guess we both like exercises in futility.

> Indeed, it does seem a bit strange to use those terms in this context,
> where me and the person whose idea you attacked are developers with no
> particular elevated position over you, and you are a member of the
> technical committee.

        What does my membership in the tech ctte have anything to do
 with the price of beans in Idaho?  Are you implying that I would abuse
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Mike O'Connor | 1 Apr 2008 08:32

Re: Technical committee resolution

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:28:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:47:42 -0300, Martín Ferrari <martin.ferrari <at> gmail.com> said: 
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:46 AM, MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> >> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta <at> debian.org> wrote:
> 
> >> >  better job of them than other candidates, why deprive the project
> >> >  due Clint's law of pointless limitations? [...]
> >> 
> >> I feel that the above personalisation of argument is unhelpful.
> >> 
> >> I don't believe that we should limit people to one hat, but limiting
> >> people to one hat *of this type* might be helpful and merits further
> >> consideration.  What is "this type"?  Probably we need to re-sort
> >> http://www.debian.org/intro/organization>  to decide that, if people
> >> http://www.debian.org/intro/organization>  feel it's a good idea.
> 
> > I fail to understand why Manoj sees this as such a silly idea, and it
> 
>         Because the number of hats does not seem to be a good predictor
>  for performance -- at least, not for a low number of hats.  There are
>  better objective measure that would ensure hastening of the glacial
>  pace and lack of follow through th tech ctte has.
> 

It seems to me however that there might be other valid reasons to limit
the number of important hats one wears other than what effect it might
have on ones performance.  As examples I think that it would be
reasonable for people to think that having the same person that is
deciding which packages can be allowed into debian also be a person that
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Josip Rodin | 1 Apr 2008 09:28

Re: Technical committee resolution

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:34:37PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Indeed, it does seem a bit strange to use those terms in this context,
> > where me and the person whose idea you attacked are developers with no
> > particular elevated position over you, and you are a member of the
> > technical committee.
> 
>         What does my membership in the tech ctte have anything to do
>  with the price of beans in Idaho?  Are you implying that I would abuse
>  the powers vested in the office in a petty manner?  It did not even
>  occcur to me, and the fact it occurred to you says something.
> 
> > Don't you see that your blunt rebuke for the idea can easily be
> > understood as condescension, and that, in that light, it would be more
> > prudent to avoid the flaming style as well as coarse language?
> 
>         I called the Idea silly.  Still do.  I refuse to be censored by
>  your beliefs, whatever they might be. You certainly are not limiting
>  your contribution to this discussion; I do not see my tech ctte
>  membership as a handicap.

This is what I referred to as the flaming style... You read one sentence,
interpret it, reply to it; read next sentence, interpret it, reply to it.
There is no caching. Without it, you get to think that I meant something in
the first sentence, but I explicitly said what I meant in the second
sentence.

We agree to disagree, and that's fine, but please respect my paragraphs :)

> > But in a reasonably serious discussion on the composition of the same
> > committee, IMHO a bit more tact would be in order. Ultimately, for your
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Manoj Srivastava | 1 Apr 2008 10:06
X-Face
Face
Picon
Favicon

Re: Technical committee resolution

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:28:53 +0200, Josip Rodin <joy <at> entuzijast.net> said: 

>> > But in a reasonably serious discussion on the composition of the
>> > same committee, IMHO a bit more tact would be in order. Ultimately,
>> > for your own sake, certainly not mine...
>> 
>> Err, is that some kind of a threat? Why would increasing my blood
>> pressure by self censorship be good for my sake? This is puzzling
>> (and somewhat amusing, I must confess)

> If I really have to spell it out... if people think you don't show
> tact and prudence where appropriate, they may not have a good opinion
> of you.

        I don't think people have a good opinion of me. But it does not
 matter; The geeta says that my actions should be what I think is right;
 and as long as my Dharma is satisfied, that is all one could ask of
 oneself.  I act as I think I should. People's opinion of me is their
 business.

        manoj
--

-- 
I can't stand squealers; hit that guy. Albert Anastasia
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta <at> debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Manoj Srivastava | 1 Apr 2008 10:13
X-Face
Face
Picon
Favicon

Re: Technical committee resolution

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 02:32:54 -0400, Mike O'Connor <stew <at> vireo.org> said: 

> It seems to me however that there might be other valid reasons to
> limit the number of important hats one wears other than what effect it
> might have on ones performance.  As examples I think that it would be
> reasonable for people to think that having the same person that is
> deciding which packages can be allowed into debian also be a person
> that decides what pepole can become new members might be too much
> power for one person.  Or if you have one person in charge of the
> debian policy, in charge of conducting all votes and also serving on
> the team making technical deicistions it might be too much
> power. Regardless of the speed at which people in these kinds of
> positions may or may not be performing their jobs.

        Now that would be a valid argument, if you could defend it. But
 that was not was being done;  the sillyness resulted from putting
 arbitrary numbers and limits; what you are hypothesizing requires thought
 being put into the proposal, and taking into account the actual people,
 roles, and powers, and stating why that amalgamation of
 responsibilities  is something to be avoided.  Proposals about policy
 are things that require effort and thought; short circuiting the
 thought process and rushing in with limits just for the sake of limits
 leads us nowhere.

        Now, if you have such s proposal (rather than a hypothetical,
 and are prepared to defend that proposal in an open discussion, please
 advance it here.

        manoj
--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Holger Levsen | 1 Apr 2008 01:52

Re: Technical committee resolution

Hi,

On Monday 31 March 2008 21:45, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
[wordpress]
> FWIW, it's orphaned since yesterday. But let's keep it in Lenny
> as well, I no longer care.

Hu?

Can you please elaborate? "Orphaned, pretty bad security record, let's keep 
it" -> I don't understand.

regards,
	Holger
Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Philipp Kern | 1 Apr 2008 11:21
Picon
Favicon

Re: My vote

[ Please Cc me on replies, if any, I am not on -vote. ]

On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 03:30:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Hi Manoj, I haven't yet got the ack for my vote but I guess I know the
> > reason.  Do you use the pristine Debian keyring?  If so, could you
> > please either refresh all keys or just mine, using the keyservers
> > (like e.g.  subkeys.pgp.net)?  My encryption subkey expired recently
> > and I did update the expiration date after the keyring was last
> > regenerated.
>         Yes, devotee uses the pristine Debian keyring, and it has to,
>  according to the constitution: only people who have their keys in the
>  Debian keyring are DD's, by definition; and I don't think I can take
>  data from outside the official keyring for votes.

Well, I checked vote.debian.org yesterday and saw the cronjob syncing
the keyring twice daily from raff.  So my votes are counted, as I appear
on the list of voters, but I cannot check if my vote was counted right
after the polls closed because I don't have access to my token...

I hope that this doesn't make the vote subject to appeals but well, I
guess the secretary could still access the voter - secret token
association?  (Somehow key id - secret token has to be saved, otherwise
votes couldn't be overwritten.)

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
--

-- 
 .''`.  Philipp Kern                             Debian Developer
: :' :  http://philkern.de                       Debian Release Assistant
`. `'   xmpp:phil <at> 0x539.de
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Joey Schulze | 1 Apr 2008 11:09
Favicon

Re: Technical committee resolution

Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Monday 31 March 2008 21:45, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> [wordpress]
> > FWIW, it's orphaned since yesterday. But let's keep it in Lenny
> > as well, I no longer care.
> 
> Hu?
> 
> Can you please elaborate? "Orphaned, pretty bad security record, let's keep 
> it" -> I don't understand.

Maybe it's meant cynical?

Regards,

	Joey

--

-- 
Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it!  -- Mark Twain

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Holger Levsen | 1 Apr 2008 11:38

Re: Technical committee resolution

Hi,

On Tuesday 01 April 2008 11:09, Joey Schulze wrote:
> > [wordpress]
> > > FWIW, it's orphaned since yesterday. But let's keep it in Lenny
> > > as well, I no longer care.
> > Can you please elaborate? "Orphaned, pretty bad security record, let's
> > keep it" -> I don't understand.
> Maybe it's meant cynical?

Maybe. I dunno.

And if so, what is the plan for wordpress in etch and lenny?

regards,
	Holger
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |

Gmane