Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 16:07 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Because it's been broken for ages? Because I've asked the same on the
>> bug I've referred to multiple times, as did quite a few other people,
>> and the thing is still dead ~3 hours a day? (So uhm, the argument that
>> infra doesn't know about is _really_ moot.) Because users complain over
>> and over again? Because we are getting tons of duplicate bugs due to
>> bugzilla being non-responsive? 
> 
> Ok this is basically bitching. Trust me we all know the current state 
> of things with bugzilla and it's not fun for anybody. I'm sure 
> however if you practice a little patience I'm sure you will be 
> quite pleased with the end result.

A little patience? As in half year is not enough?

>> Because it's wasting hours of my time
>> every day? Because if CVS was in the same state, you'd about have a
>> revolution by now?
> 
> I think you might be misunderstanding the role that the council plays. 
> It's a body for technical matters that effect the mainly "the code". 
> Daily matters of infrastructure are handled by our infra team naturally.
> Funding for hardware is approved by the foundation.

Well, I think council should care about things that affect Gentoo as a
whole, and apparently that's not just me:

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/

<snip>
The elected Gentoo Council decides on global issues and policies that
affect multiple projects in Gentoo.
</snip>

Broken bugzilla affects every ebuild dev, affects GDP, affects bug
wranglers, affects anyone else who's using it to track outstanding
project issues. How is this continuous borkage not a global issue that
council should discuss?

> You must live in that town where spare hardware and administrators 
> grow on the trees.

No, not really. Just that I'd expect kinda more proactive approach than
the one demonstrated fex. in
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=128588#c29 (and a bit more
flexible approach to other alternatives, such as HW/hosting offers we've
received before) and that have been declined for various strange reasons.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@g.o
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)