Re: Bug#441200: libconfig name clash
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#441200: libconfig name clash"):
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 10:00:31PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > See #438683 where otherwise sensible people are suggesting using the
> > name libconfig1 for the new library due to the TC's inactivity.
>
[ argument that it wasn't anyone important and/or relevant ]
> I don't find that remotely concerning or particularly relevant.
Well, I see your points but I'm still concerned about it. I think
that there's evidence that left to themselves people may choose poor
names and there's evidence that ftpmaster may accept them; I don't
attach particular significance to the fact that there isn't cast-iron
proof that the main participants are determined to repeat their (or
their predecessors' and upstreams') mistakes.
You have not answered my direct question:
I would be happy with us simply issuing advice to the ftpmasters for
their NEW processing. Would you be happy with such a clause ?
As I say, I remain worried about the possibility that the new names
will be poor and I feel the need for some measures beyond simply
letting the maintainers put new names through NEW and letting matters
take their usual course.
Alternatively, if you have a different approach which you think may
address my concerns then please suggest it. (By which I mean an
approach which you think _I_ may _agree_ will address my concerns.)
> > Picking names ourselves is going to make us deeply unpopular (rightly
> > so IMO) and get us well bogged down in bikeshedding.
>
> So we shouldn't be involved in negotiations -- even to the extent of
> asking maintainers where they stand; shouldn't pick anything particular
> ourselves, and should practice the art of politics by compromising? All
> over a name that hasn't even been suggested by any of the packagers?
You seem to be suggesting that my position is either inconsistent or
excessively finicky but I'm afraid it's not exactly clear to me what
you mean.
I don't think we should get _bogged down_ in negotiations about the
names before we make a decision. This is because negotiations about
names are likely to be time-consuming, would not be about anything
vitally important, and are unlikely to have any particularly useful or
interesting arguments on either side.
I would prefer the negotiations about names to happen after we have
issued our main ruling and I think we need something lighter weight
than the TC resolution procedure to deal with approving names. Hence
my earlier suggestion for the tacit approval procedure, and also my
suggestion about asking ftpmasters to be extra picky.
I'm asking _you_ to engage constructively in this discussion by being
prepared to change your position, which includes compromising on minor
details if you don't think they are particularly important but they
make other people happier. It also includes making concrete
suggestions which you think are likely to gain broader agreement - as
indeed I have tried to do with my ftpmaster advice idea.
Of course it is up to you to decide whether you think my proposed
request to the ftpmasters is a minor wrinkle which you might be
willing to accept, or a hideous genocidal affront to the independence
of the Vogoninity of the poet; if it's the latter then we are probably
too far apart for conversation on that point to be useful.
If it's closer to the former then we can perhaps have a constructive
and useful conversation at least provided that you're willing to take
on board the idea that at least in my eyes my own concerns have some
merit.
Ian.
Reply to: