Maintainer Responsibilities

[Josef Bacik]

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:06:45 +0200, Ralf wrote:
>>
>>> I consider users (esp. bug reporters) not to be "the dumb pigs eating the
>>> hog wash they get for free", or "clueless comsumer masses" aborbing anything
>>> they don't pay for with money, but them to be the foundation of your work
>>> and them to be valuable business partners, paying in immaterial payment
>>> (e.g. feedback, such as bug reports).
>>
>> That's an idealistic [over-simplified] point of view which I don't want to
>> agree with.
>
> Well, whether it's idealistic or not is irrelevant. It's one of the
> foundations of open source.
>
> Or less abstract:
> I stopped reporting bugs against Fedora's evolution, because its @RH
> maintainer preferred to close bugs and tried to push me around to upstream.
> Wrt. evolution, I was an ordinary user and am not interested in getting
> further involved.
>
> As simple as it is: I felt sufficiently pissed of by this guy to leave him
> and his upstream alone, ... so be it, he wanted it this way.
>
> There are other packages and packagers (noteworthy many of the @RH) who
> exhibit the same "push reporters around" behavior.
>

Bz #'s?  You seem to like to complain a lot about how crappy of a job
us Red Hatters do, but don't offer any concrete evidence.  I would be
very much interested in seeing these "many" people at RH who exhibit
this behaviour.  One anecdotal interaction where we only have your
word about what happened does not count as sufficient evidence for the
sweeping generalization that @RH people don't care about bugs.

Josef