Autor: Arno Schuring Data: Para: devuan-dev@lists.dyne.org Assunto: Re: [devuan-dev] Nominations for Devuan Council (Re: Notes - Devuan
meet Oct. 04/05 2017)
Thusly spoke Jaromil (jaromil@??? on 2017-10-09 11:10 +0200): >
> To solve this repeated stall, I believe we need to include Parazyd in
> the leadership to give a strong signal that Devuan values who drives
> forward the project.
Maybe I'm speaking only for myself, but the #1 reason I left Debian was
because it values those who drive the project more than its users. The
context may be different, but statements like these put me back on the
fence between Debian and D1.
I believe that Devuan needs a leadership that facilitates more than one
that does. I can't go into specifics because I don't know any, nor do I
particularly care to know. But simply going by parazyd's list, it seems
that most issues are about communication and delegation, not about
technical disagreement. It would seem that we need people in the core
with the skills to remove blockers, but it appears that we're instead
looking for authority to push through. So what exactly is the
authority/remit of the "council" we're nominating for?
(note: this is not to say that I oppose parazyd's nomination -- just
that the stated grounds for his nomination don't echo well with me)
> I also welcome other nominations, but believe that the most important
> role for Devuan now is not downstream distro development, but focus on
> system administration and package development.
Fully agreed here, up to a point. In my view, we should not make too
much distinction between Devuan-native package development and
downstream distro's: if we treat D1 package development as just another
downstream (from a system administration point of view), the inclusion
of 3rd-party distro's becomes one of configuration (and scale) only.
> Regarding exclusion of nextime from the lead, I have understood from
> him he'd prefer not to be excluded, but he has not replied to any of
> my emails or PMs in the last 2 weeks and he is not replying on a
> urgent task (VPN inclusion of new CI arms), which is a very bad sign.
I don't see a reason to specifically exclude him. I just pointed out
that it's a bit of a misnomer to call something a 5-member team when
it's known beforehand that one is taking an indefinite sabbatical.