On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:44:03PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote: > > Yes, but the utherly arrogant and despreciating way in how this announcement > > Chill out. It was a RFC, and it was labelled as such. It may not be perfect, > and obviously it will see some (many?) changes yet. But it was NOT arrogant > or depreciating. > > Some of it could have used a lot more thought (the need for a tier-1.5 where > there is full support but a reduced mirror set is *obvious* in hindsight > IMHO), but that's the idea behind requesting comments.
Where are the minutes of the discussion, where are detailed explanation of the problems trying to be sovled ? Where is a call to alternative solution ? Where is a call for help from the arch porters for security and infrastructure issues ? Given that things are like they are in big part because such help was rejected in the paste, how do you not see this as a decision which doesn't care for the non-tier1 ports ? > > No data on what exactly the problems where, no data on the correlation of > > those problems on the proposed drastic solutions, no minutes of the meeting, > > no previous announcement to involve the porters, nothing. > > Since it is a RFC, that is not needed, as we ARE obviously going over all > that anyway, and trying to do it beforehand *is* an utterly useless effort > the way Debian mailinglist threads usually work. Doing it this way is an utter lack of respect for the debian maintainers not in the inner circle. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
