[csw-maintainers] Thematics month proposal

[Peter Bonivart]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
> I dont think that playing games like that is beneficial to the quality of
> CSW packages. But that seems to be what Peter is aiming for, since the
> other cases are Already Handled.

I wouldn't call disclosing the process and sharing the load playing
games but it's nice to hear your view of it.

> In my opinion, it would be a bad thing, to have one set of packages that
> are put into "current"  via one person, that have strict consistency to them,
> and then have another set of packages, allowed to go into current
> by a different person, that did not have consistency to them.

There's really no defence to your single of point of failure strategy.
You're just getting desperate and now you're insulting anyone wanting
to help even before they get a chance. Do you really think that no one
can do what you do? Blastwave does fine without your help, I have made
an alternative to pkg-get and Dago basically does what you when it
comes to the current versus testing repos. You're defending your
position with secrecy and discrediting.

> That is my opinion. Now that we have a whole definition of "membership"
> in the "OpenCSW association", perhaps we can have a format vote to
> see how many people share my opinion, and settle this issue.

Sysadmins tend to go for redundancy and load balancing when given a
choice. Let's hope most of us are sysadmins and not
pointy-haired-bosses.

-- 
/peter