<tbm> got a minute. I'm wondering about your latest blog
<joeyh> the one I committed 2 minutes ago or the pervious one?
<tbm> the dpl one
<joeyh> ok, sure
<tbm> what does it mean to focus on technical things? I focused on organizational things, but mostly in a way so that other people can do their technical work without having to worry.
<joeyh> I basically think that part of the whole dpl-as-figurehead problem is that we have stopped trusting our DPLs to lead the project toard large technical changes to Debian (software)
<tbm> that's right, but I think the majority doesn't want that anyway. Like Ted T'so, who said he wanted a "strong leader" but when I asked him to lead the kernel team he said he'd prefer to maintain a kernel in non-free than a crippled one in main.
<tbm> funny asking for a strong leader but then ignorning the leader
<tbm> but yeah, it seems we disagree about the role of the dpl; I see it more as organizational/secretarial so other people can do their technical work
<joeyh> right, which is why I'm focusing on it to the exclusion of all the other stuff the DPL should do, to try to counterbalance that majority as best I can
<tbm> like getting you a laptop for d-i for example
<joeyh> look at Shuttleworth. He's provided strong technical directions to Ubunutu. Occasionally incorrect, arguably often iffy, but it's done a lot for them
<tbm> oh, I see. Right. What I think Debian needs is someone to say which way to go when one of our discussions/flamewars don't end in consensus, which they recently never do
<tbm> but somehow I doubt most DDs would care what the dpl said anyway.
<joeyh> we need a DPL to make decisions like "Debian will ship a Gnome desktop by defualt in the sarge release", and who can get the whole project behind that. Otherwise it leaves people like me having to work around the projet's inability to make the decision under the radar
<tbm> they got so used to "quiet" dpls
<tbm> yeah, I agree with you on this.
<tbm> okay, thanks for clarifying
<joeyh> do you mind if I post this on my blog?