On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:14:05PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: > On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 05:43:41PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > I'm not sure what you mean by this question, or what the point is. > > I will clarify. AJ obviously feels that it is his prerogative (under > which hat or set of hats, I do not know) to decide which set of > architectures in the archive are worthwhile,
That would be the ftpmaster hat, I presume. > and what manner of supplication or "wowing" is necessary to change his > preconceived notions on these matters. > > You may recall the amd64 issue, where numerous reasons were given why > this architecture could not be incorporated officially under exactly the > same criteria as every other architecture which had preceded it. > Possibly there was some "blowing away" that occurred either before, > during, or after the time that AJ was paid a sizable sum of money to do > some work that was arbitrarily deemed necessary for amd64 inclusion by > some unnamed member or members of the ftp-team. AIUI, no blowing-away occurred; rather, he hadn't had time before, and being paid to do so allowed him to do the work on this rather than finding some paid work to earn a living instead. [...] > Now it is unclear which hat AJ is wearing when he implies that he is > authorized to decide which architectures are important, by criteria he > decides unilaterally. I am curious as to what the other candidates > think: is it appropriate for him to do this, and, if so, which > positions of authority or achievements have earned him the "moral" right > to do so? > > As for the point of my question: I find this behavior to be highly > arrogant and offensive, and will be ranking AJ below NotA because of it. > In order to vote fairly, it is important to know the attitudes of the > other candidates in these matters. It is the responsability of the ftp-masters to guard what gets into the archive. This does indeed need to be guarded, because even with the SCC split adding additional architectures at random isn't necessarily a good idea. Disk space may be cheap; bandwidth isn't always, and adding another architecture requires several gigabytes in both disk space and bandwidth. While I may find his choice of words unfortunate and do consider the kFreeBSD port to be worthwhile, I don't disagree with the basic premise that we can't just drop in every random port that doesn't add value. In that light, I do not find such behaviour either arrogant or offensive. > Does that clear up everything for you? Yes. Does this also clarify my position enough, or would you prefer me to answer your seven questions? -- <Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
