Hi, On Sonntag, 22. August 2010, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: > To clarify a bit about that (and some comments on irc:): It was neither > a typo, nor written in a hurry. I got that text from the debconf team, > when I read the text, I asked on the #debconf-team channel (see > http://paste.debian.net/84936/ for some logs), and even after that there > was plenty of time to review it.
I think this very irc log proves my point that the text was written^wreviewed
and decided in hurry.
(Which is not a problem at all per se, I know very well how conferences work.)
> So according to me, it was neither a typo, nor a decission in hurry, not
> a bug. There was plenty of time to reconsider.
DebConf10 was not a time to reconsider anything, in my POV.
> So again: If the deconf team decides to reconsider their numbering
> scheme (which I would really appreciate; but whatever you decide, please
> stick to it), we will of course follow it for any further announcements.
DebConf$PREVIOUS already decided DebConf$Number was the $number+1 DebConf, as
we logically started counting as zero.
So while I see your noble intend to now stick to an arbitrary choosen
decission, your noble intend fails in recognizing previous team decisions.
(I dont remember exactly for which DebConf(s) we had this discussion already,
but I'm 100% certain we had them, I and also think we had them more then
once.)
> But this one has been sent with the content the dc team drafted and
> approved. So let's just leave it the way it is.
I *strongly* object against this notion (that it was team drafted approved).
This was a text thrown into an irc channel during a running conference (eg,
while I did comment on the text, I only looked at it very briefly and only at
some points, cause I was busy with dc10 video stuff), a conference which (IMO
(*)) precisely lacked a properly working debconf team. Having to read now
that this wording was "team approved" strikes me in horror, really. IMO, this
text was chaos approved, not team approved.
And not wanting to fix a counting error, because a (working or not)
team "decided" (with or without the quotes) that 2+2=5, is just wrong.
DebConf10 was the eleventh DebConf. No decission can change that.
cheers,
Holger
(*) details on that later, some people from the videoteam plan to write down
what exactly (we think) went wrong this year.
(And obviously, DebConf10 also went well in the end. I think that is due do an
enourmous amount of outstanding contributions from individuals (who as a
group make up parts of debconf-team) - but despite (or because) of this I do
think that debconf10-team as a team failed greatly. (**)
Also I dont want to discuss this under this angle, I dont think that would be
productive. So this shall be my last contribution to this thread. Let's start
a hopefully more productive one soon.)
(**) please note that I used debconf10-team and no local and no global there.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
