I've just read Vincent Sanders' Bits from the kernel team. First, a big thank you to him: this kind of detailed information about what the team intends to do, down to a very technical level, is needed much more often on d-d-a. Debian is about producing a distribution, which in the end comes down on how to make independently produced pieces of software work together, so getting all the fiddly bits right is the most important aspect of Debian's work. (And it is also where I think Debian still does better than all other distributions I've ever used.)
What immediately sparked this article is (could it be otherwise? ;-) the part I didn't like too much about these Bits: “ ... was discussed ... ” ” ... was resolved ...“ ” ... further investigation ... would occur.” and right at the top “ ... a member of the release team ... ”
Of course the team should work together as a whole. Of course it isn't really relevant who of the release team was present. Of course, this information is contained in the minutes. But on the whole, these Bits read a bit like a press release of a large corporation where the spokesman reads a communique prepared for him by a marketing team responsible. I miss the personal touch that should in my opinion run in parallel with our promise of openness: it's not only that we don't hide bugs, it's also that we're not hiding behind a “corporate identity”, but that we're not afraid to name names (No, this is not in a foundation document as such. It's my interpretation of openness.) A start is simple use of active vs. passive: Why not “we discussed/decided ... ” instead of “it was discussed/resolved”? (It's used in a few places, I note.) I appreciate that naming names with each action item is probably better left in the minutes, but at least naming the release team member (he's not just a functionary...) and perhaps at the end a short paragraph about who was there would have improved the announcement.
Also: none of the items has an ETA — obviously Debian is famous for not having any ETA's but we're trying to change this, aren't we? So why not give at least a rough estimate which tasks would take a week, a month, half a year... to complete? I'm sure you discussed it (have yet to read the minutes), if only to guesstimate what is realistic within the timeframe of the squeeze release cycle.
Debian not only is no company, but it's also, and I hope I'm not the only person who thinks this is important, a Linux distribution where no corporate body has the power to force changes on the community. The single person is important, because it's the single person who in the end decides to implement a thing this or that way. It may be the outcome of a team discussion and a team's decision, but the work is done by individual people and not by employees impementing a corporate policy.
Comments