Re: Bug#573745: ping
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#573745: ping"):
> Do you mean that you would get a *private* ack from the current maintainer,
> but no public one?
I am assuming that we are likely to get no ack at all.
> As commented in my previous mail, I don't believe that a maintenance *team*
> can be formed without the consent of all involved, and that a forced team
> eventually devolves into either a forced takeover or a failed takeover. (In
> this case, since it's with the TC's imprimatur, it would presumably be a
> forced takeover.) So I'm only willing to consider forming a team without
> the explicit consent of the current maintainer under circumstances where I
> think a forced takeover is also an acceptable outcome.
What I see in this case is this:
The current maintainer has completely failed to communicate with us at
all about the challenge and criticisms which have been brought before
us.
Under these circumstances I think our *only* reasonable decision is a
forced takeover as soon as a plausible set of replacement maintainers
are available.
One of the most effective approaches that the TC has had in resolving
disputes is to act as a kind of referee for the conversation between
two sides. When both sides can be persauded to be reasonable this
usually results in an amicable solution; when it doesn't, it becomes
obvious who is being unreasonable.
The current maintainer is making that impossible. Indeed the current
maintainer is making our task impossible. Whether that is a
deliberate strategy to stall us indefinitely, or simply
conflict-avoidant, is immaterial.
Or to put it another way, your current approach means that we are
blocked by the maintainer and have been for at least twelve months.
This blocking is likely to continue indefinitely. We need to unblock
this problem, which means we need to take waiting for or relying on
responses from the current maintainer out of the equation.
As Luca, one of the original petitioners, wrote:
Part of the problem is that Matthias is not communicating anymore on
public channels, and uses other people as a proxy.
...
Debian cannot live in a situation where the maintainer of a core
package doesn't even talk to people who directly depend on his work.
> But as long as we have the current maintainer's agreement (in whatever
> form), this concern is null. 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".
What will you say if we get together some proposed new team, and
suggest it, and all we get from the current maintainer is the single
word "no" ?
Ian.
Reply to: