| I mean, I'm also not sure if his "FUD avoidant" post has the desired effect the way it is posted, but "damage control and image management" suggest that Debian would be a Company and a PR department doing such a thing. That's simply not the case, and the OP is right that there were many Debian Developers in 2019 and there are many other Debian Developers now. Not saying that does not mean that it won't be noticed, or just brushed over, if a prolific member decides to step down. > The piece was cogent, respectful, and constructive. Just for clarity, I agree with that. > How about addressing his points? Who, the OP? Even his nick name suggests affiliation with Debian, there is normally support and action of more people required to bring bigger change. But yes, IMO Debian surely needs to continue to adapt or be doomed to frustrate more developers in the future. Things like (from the blog post):
> I tried to contribute a threaded list archive, but our listmasters didn’t seem to care or want to support the project. Just seems baffling to me, he proposed to do the actual work (and with his record one could be certain that he'd follow through) of a feature where one can only win (i.e., don't like it? Just continue to use what you like). Such resentment against unproblematic changes, bringing value to some group but not taking away value from others, is tedious and demotivating. But who takes up the fight to change Debian? In the end it probably needs to come from within, i.e., a sizeable part of Debian Developers need to drive and push forward, or at least reduce the barriers for those who wish to do so respectfully, without breaking what is now. |
No, damage control or image management in no way implies a Company or PR department. Any group can engage in these activities. Later you point out, the OP appears to be affiliated with Debian.
> Who, the OP? Even his nick name suggests affiliation with Debian, there is normally support and action of more people required to bring bigger change.
Yes, the OP. I perhaps should have used the words ‘commenting on’, or ‘responding to’ instead of ‘addressing’.
I am not expecting the OP to solve the problems, but I am suggesting that it would be more constructive to comment on the substantive content of the original article than to write innuendo about how many people are just quietly contributing, or implying that the author may be part of a ‘vocal minority’.