On Dec 29, Robert Woodcock wrote: > On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 07:07:54PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > OK. Whose fault is it? > > With all due respect, I don't believe it matters.
I must disagree here. If there is a specific problem with certain individuals obstructing progress in New Maintainer, it's the DPL's job to either (a) get progress going again or (b) find someone else who will. This isn't the first time we've had a failure of leadership in the past year because of progress being obstructed by 1 or 2 developers... the /usr/share transition springs immediately to mind. As for naming names, it's a matter of accountability. Yes, NM is messed up. Now we need to make sure NM doesn't get messed up again, and to do that we need people in NM we can trust not to stage a walkout when their perception of the project (as being overloaded with deadweight developers who cultivate pages of bug reports on their packages) is woefully at odds with reality. And one way to do that is to figure out (a) who did what and (b) ensure those "whos" who acted improperly aren't in a position to screw us over again. Yep, I'm mad, if only because I've been dealing with 3 potential developers who'd be real assets to this project, who are getting more disillusioned with us daily because of crap like this. Chris, who will PGP sign this on request. -- ============================================================================= | Chris Lawrence | Get Debian GNU/Linux CDROMs | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.lordsutch.com/cds/ | | | | | Debian Developer | Join the party that opposed the CDA | | http://www.debian.org/ | http://www.lp.org/ | =============================================================================
