Snipping a lot for readability. I'm trying to do that in a way that still preserves what I believe to be original meaning and intent. If I botch it, my apologies, please correct it.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Jonathan Craig <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Philip Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It seems you are saying that you "look at the pkgsubmissions mailing >> list already". >[...] > > Ah, but the reality is that I pay greater attention to list emails > that are associated with bug reports. Thats were I really feel I can > learn something. In a way, your reply backs up what I am saying. You pay (greater) attention, when *someone else* has noticed an issue. But what if no-one is comitted to examining and bringing up issues in the first place? This is a core concern I have. [...] > You seem to continuously ignore the reality that the proposed process > allows anyone to review any package and seek corrections prior to > publication. IMO, this is a form of intellectual dishonesty. You > haven't said it but from your posts I can only assume that if you > can't be the "human" in human centric then you have no wish to > participate. I thought I have explicitly said the opposite. I dont care if it's me, but I believe there does need to be *someone*, or someones, with that explicit task, otherwise it wont get fully done. > As to human vs automated processes you are ignoring that an automated > process can apply the same level of scrutiny to every package > regardless of the number submitted. People keep trying to force this into a "human, OR automated process", and claiming this is what I want. Yet not once have I advocated getting rid of the automated process. My preference is for "human examination, AND automated process". I have been requesting this be made available as a choice, but it is being blocked. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
