著者: golinux 日付: To: devuan developers internal list 題目: Re: [devuan-dev] Nominations for Devuan Council (Re: Notes - Devuan
meet Oct. 04/05 2017)
On 2017-10-09 09:33, Arno Schuring wrote: > 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.
That's exactly why I posted "Let's not let history repeat itself" few
days ago.
>
> 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.
>
Communication, limited access and technical issues - scorsh/releasebot,
infra setup etc. - are all involved.
>
> 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?
>
There are currently access blockers that are preventing wider
participation. Those with the power to make those changes have been
slow to respond so the process is stalled. Once that is cleared the new
leads will have access to keep the infra running smoothly and improve it
as necessary.
>
>> 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.
>