On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 07:52:10PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > Perhaps we have different ideas about the proper way for TC members to > behave after our positions have become clear on the main question at > hand, and the main substantive questions have been fully explored. The substantive questions haven't been explored. I've been the only one doing that, and we _remain_ with absolutely no evidence this is causing any sort of problem beyond "it does something different to gethostbyname". > I think there comes a point where we should all accept that we aren't > going to convince each other, You haven't tried convincing me; you've gathered absolutely no evidence, nor tried to find a compromise position that might not be what either of us would prefer, but that we'd both accept. You've just stood on a soap box and spouted on about how as someone who's implemented a DNS library you know how DNS should work, when and how to ignore standards track RFCs in favour of your views, and how the tech committee must operate. You've claimed that stable isn't affected by the issue in response to mails explicitly noting it is, claimed without evidence that this has been proven to "cause significant operational problems in practice", claimed without evidence that "it broke our own ftp site" in spite of ftp.debian.org having a single address. Combining that eagerness to overrule the maintainers here without providing any reason for the maintainers, upstream, or IETF to review their take on the matter, with your declaration the committee's job is to "review every disagreement in Debian" and insistance on issuing a ruling even when the dispute has already been dealt with properly by themaintainer leaves this is a naked grab for power. Decisions in Debian are meant to be made by maintainers, not some core team. If your time with Canonical has made you come to another view, that's fine, but it's not the way Debian does or should work. If your lifestyle changes mean you've just got too much time on your hands, you should be spending it hacking on Debian, not bossing other developers around. But anyway, we've discussed this enough. If we end up with some actual evidence of problems to analyse I'll be happy to post about that, but otherwise I'll just be voting for further discussion ahead of any resolutions that don't specify why the maintainer isn't already handling this successfully and thus why the tech-ctte needs to be involved, which sadly seems to be everything you're proposing. At least that means there need to be four other members of the ctte voting in favour before the resolution can actually get in the way of the maintainer doing what they think is right. > Thus further argumentation to try to change each others' minds is both > rude and unproductive. I haven't been trying to convince you to > change your mind because I feel that everything useful on both sides > has already been said plenty of times already. Would you please do > the same, for all of our sakes ? Por que no te callas, eh? > There is nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree in that sense. After > all, we have a supposedly civilised and functional voting system so > that we can reach decisions even when not everyone is of one mind. I suspect somehow that the reason we need a strong consensus for overruling a maintainer is precisely so that we do have to discuss the issue and potential change each others' minds before doing so. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature