[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: roaraudio dispute

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 03:24:12PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Having said that I am concerned that there has been impropriety in the
> process.  In
>     http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=675610
> Ron wrote 
>     We'd like to have nothing depending on roar for wheezy
> Without the background knowledge the most natural reading of that
> message is that there is some technical problem with roar which cannot
> easily be fixed, and that the roar maintainers agree.  The maintainer
> of cmus took it as a request from the roaraudio maintainers to remove
> the dependency.  That's how I would have read it too.

> So while I wanted to put all the above on the record, there may be
> little more to be done about it by the TC.  (I have CC'd leader@ in
> case they want to take this up.)

Hi Ian et al., thanks for bringing me in the loop (even though I'm
following this discussion anyhow). If there is a trust problem, that
would be in fact up to DAM, but it's true that the DPL is generally kept
in the loop of those kinds of discussions.

For my part, I'm inclined to see no malice by default, unless the
contrary is proven. I understand what you mean when pointing to the
above bug report, and I agree a bit more clarity would have been
welcome. But there might be plenty of other honest reasons for saying
"we'd like to do $foo for Wheezy", other than impersonating a
maintainer. And given my no-malice-by-default principle, I do not see
malice there, just someone trying to make things work, according to his
own technical judgement (which might be wrong or not, but that's a
different matter).

I also expect the maintainer receiving such a bug report, to do some
technical verification before acting upon it. Failing that, and in case
the maintainers want to trust the bug reporter, I expect them to verify
the authoritativeness of the reporter.

All in all, I don't see any need to take further action on this part of
the dispute, ... but I'm looking forward to the conclusion of its other

Thanks for your work on this,
Stefano Zacchiroli     zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences   ......   http://upsilon.cc/zack   ......   . . o
Debian Project Leader    .......   @zack on identi.ca   .......    o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: