Re: FTP masters willingly blocking OpenStack nova 2013.1 just right before the OpenStack summit
* Ian Jackson (ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [130416 12:47]:
> Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: FTP masters willingly blocking OpenStack nova 2013.1 just right before the OpenStack summit"):
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 01:34:25PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > You should refer to the TC when it becomes clear that neither you nor
> > > the ftpmasters are going to be convinced, or if you feel that the
> > > ftpmasters aren't engaging sufficiently constructively in the
> > > conversation.
> ...
> > Unfortunately even the TC can't force the ftp team to engage in any
> > conversation. Basically they can overrule a conversation but they
> > can't overrule silence. They can overrule a bad reason given but they
> > can't overrule when no reason is given.
>
> For the record, this is not how I would approach such a question.
>
> In the absence of a coherent rationale for a decision we're asked to
> review (whether made by a maintainer, ftpmasters, or whoever), I would
> vote to overrule.
>
> Such a rationale might be provided by the parties to the dispute, or
> by others, or might be evident to, and explained by, some or all of
> the committee members. In the case of #535645 I think the decision
> was taken based on a rationale most clearly enunciated by Andi and
> Steve.
To see an example where we overrule, see #698556 where we decided to
overrule a maintainer *because* there was no sufficient cause
communicated for a decision. I would have been more happy with more
communication, but in the end, we had to decide with what we got.
Andi
Reply to: