Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo ...
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 12:45:32PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sven Luther writes ("Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo ..."):
> > As i startedto reply to Ian yesterday, no, i won't start a GR as is [...]
> `As is' ?
Oh, well, don't remember, some bad cut&paste again :/
> > I am not sure about a GR to solve this problem
> If you are so confident that you have been grievously wronged and that
> the developers will agree with you, then a GR to reverse the decision
> of the DPL and the D-I team to revoke your commit access is quite
> possible. I think that would be petty, and you would lose.
> Or, if you think the D-I team and the DPL have gone power-mad and
> won't listen to reasonable people, a GR to recall the DPL is quite
> possible too. I think that would be absurd, and you would lose.
Indeed. I think a GR is not the right way to solve social problems. It is, in
my opinion, a way to handle political and technical problem of wide-ranging
effect on the project.
This is not the case here. A GR changing the method for DD expulsion, and
codifying some other aspect of how to solve social conflicts is probably
another matter altogether, and many have already said they would support it,
> > Anyway, all i ask is that the question i ask be judged fairly, the question,
> > not my dispute with frans. Or if the TC feels this is not the right venue
> > for this, i would appreciate where the right place is for this.
> The right route for an appeal of the d-i team's decision is the DPL.
> The DPL has decided to uphold the d-i team's decision - ie, you have
> lost your appeal.
Yeah, even thought the DPL did a bad job for the mediation, and when he gave
his conclusion, it strangely lacked explanation and transparency.
The question at hand is a bit different here, though, but it seems it is again
falling in the me-against-frans-and-di scenario, which i didn't intent. IF
nothing else, frans decision was stupid, since this all only leaves me the
solution to go into directions which will hurt d-i, like forking the packages
i maintain in order to keep the benefit of the subversion repo, or other such.
I don't think this is the best for debian, but there is clearly no other
choice, since the d-i team have said that they don't even want me working on
stuff which have no impact on the bigger d-i scheme and nobody else will work
Anyway, if the TC is going to solve this problem as a social dispute, i think
it is not his topic and is lost time, so let's better stop this now.