Re: We have a problem
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 06/05/15 16:53, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> There is no requirement, but it has been common practice and is
> common courtesy to attempt to contact a person before removing
> them.
Indeed, but recently there have been so many non-responsive people
that it's made the teams job almost impossible.
> The larger issue is I have had communications with Iain. He is
> aware I now have more time I can and am spending on Debian.
> Despite this, he chose to remove me without even so much as a note
> that he was doing this.
That is partly the result of a discussion several of us have been
having on #debian-hams. Those of us who have been active recently have
pretty much decided that since it's so easy to re-add a name, removing
them isn't a problem. You are the only person so far who has objected.
> I don't have an issue removing people who are unresponsive. I have
> not been unresponsive. Honestly, I don't agree that a list of only
> 4-8 people it is really all that difficult to figure out who is
> doing what.
Actually - yes it does! If you have to email 8 people of whom 6 are
unresponsive it delays getting anything done.
> I recall seeing Thomas' email he had a new upstream with a bug fix
> or two but I don't recall Iain telling the list he was working on
> an updated package with the new version.
That is because he didn't. I packaged the new version (with input from
Thomas to fix the GCC5 bug). I did an upload and then we discovered
that it would not build on kfreebsd. Since Iain has experience there
he offered to fix it.
> It shows the same lack of respect for other team members to
> summarily remove them from the package as hijacking a package does
> to a package with a sole maintainer.
Nonsense!
Colin
- --
Colin Tuckley | +44(0)1223 830814 | PGP/GnuPG Key Id
Debian Developer | +44(0)7799 143369 | 0x38C9D903
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=YRJ5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: