| 1 |
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 19:03 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Broken bugzilla affects every ebuild dev, affects GDP, affects bug |
| 4 |
> > wranglers, affects anyone else who's using it to track outstanding |
| 5 |
> > project issues. How is this continuous borkage not a global issue that |
| 6 |
> > council should discuss? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> What is there to discuss? Do you expect them to say 'bugzilla shall be fix0rd!'? |
| 9 |
They could (in theory) demand that infra changes policies, i.e. active |
| 10 |
recruiting to reduce bottlenecks or open demands for hardware. I think |
| 11 |
it wouldn't help much though ... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> What would that change in reality? I, (and I guess so does solar) fail to see |
| 14 |
> what the council could effectively do in regard to this matter. You should |
| 15 |
> probably elaborate on that. |
| 16 |
I guess the question is "What can we do when a project misbehaves and |
| 17 |
our efforts to help are being denied?" (Please excuse the offensive |
| 18 |
formulation, but that is afaict roughly what jakub and others |
| 19 |
communicate when they wish to summon the council). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Any ideas how to improve communication appreciated :-) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
hth, |
| 24 |
Patrick |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move |
Archives