Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Having taken hold of the matter and overruled the maintainer, we have
> > a responsibility to see through the consequences, and to avoid
> > backsliding by the maintainer.
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/640874
>
> $ apt-get source leave
> [...]
> $ head -n 1 leave-1.12/debian/rules
> #!/bin/sh -e
The Constitution is quite clear that the maintainer is not required to
do the work. So until there is a patch available to leave available
implement the TC-mandated policy requirement this bug will remain
unfixed.
Note also that in this case we didn't specifically override the leave
maintainer's decision not to comply with policy.
Even if we had, in general I would expect a fair proportion of
overrulings to require NMUs. It would be too much to expect
maintainers to always have the fortitude to implement a decision they
didn't agree with. Naturally the complainants should give a
maintainer the time and space to make the upload themselves, but after
a reasonable interval I think an upload to a DELAYED queue is entirely
appropriate.
I don't think it is necessarily the TC members' job to make that NMU,
but I guess it could help in some situations from a social point of
view to have the upload come from one of the TC. And I think it would
be too much to ask TC members to (for example) implement the required
rewrite of the leave rules file.
However, the management of the bug report(s) is not ideal. As the bug
was reassigned to TC and then closed when the TC made its decision,
there is not currently a bug open against leave. Please feel free to
clone #688772 into a new bug and reopen it and assign it to leave.
> It seems pretty clear that the TC is currently not making sure that his
> decisions get acted upon (and this despite Jakub who pointed out the
> mistake in https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2012/08/msg00001.html).
I'm sorry that we didn't spot that this needed further action. I read
Jakub's message in support, and didn't follow through to the link,
which I read not as a separate point needing action but rather simply
as evidence he was advancing in support of my proposal. Since no-one
seemed to disagree with the proposal (apart from mailing list problems
now fixed) I didn't go and read the background.
But there is no reason why anyone else can't help us out with this bug
gardening. If you don't have time or inclination to do the bug
gardening for "leave" please let me know and I will do it.
Ian.
PS: I would like to point out that as I myself don't actually agree
with the TC policy decision in #688772, again I am I think excused
from a requirement to do the work to help implement it. I don't think
me insisting on this point is valuable, at least when we're just
talking about bug gardening. My inclination to rewrite the leave
rules file is limited, though. Do you think that's reasonable ?
Reply to: