On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 12:56:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Do you mean that you would get a *private* ack from the current
> maintainer, but no public one? But as long as we have the current
> maintainer's agreement (in whatever form), this concern is null.
I didn't mean to imply that I can get one but not the other. I just
wanted to share my impression that I see as unlikely that the maintainer
will publicly comment about that (while other people in this bug log
have already mentioned private discussions). I'll be happy to be proven
wrong on that point. I'm not convinced that a non-public agreement is
useful at this point, but it'd be better than nothing.
> And if the problem is that the current maintainer can DoS the process
> by not responding, I'm ok with giving an ultimatum that we would go
> forward with a change unless Matthias responds in a certain
> (reasonable) timeframe, provided that he still has the option to say
> "no".
This is a position I can understand, thanks for making it explicit.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature