Le mercredi, 30 novembre 2016, 14.11:43 h CET Sam Hartman a écrit :
> I'd really like to see the TC offer at least the following advice:
>
> 1) We believe that strong evidence is required to hold back integrating
> new versions of software like global. The burden of proof is on those
> who propose not to update, not on those who would like Debian to contain
> current upstream features.
>
> 2) This burden has not been met with regard to htags and regressions
> related to htags.
>
> 3) Delays in discussion of this issue over the year suggest that having
> more people involved in maintaining the global package would help
> address a perception that the maintainer is blocking forward progress.
Absolutely. This would be a the very minimal statement I'd like us to emit.
> I don't think I'd support giving global to someone else.
I would support handing global to new maintainers, really. We have 4 persons
who have contributed to the newly-available package in experimental:
https://tracker.debian.org/news/820174
Their total work is a magnitude more than what was given to the package by the
current maintainer in the last 6 years.
> I don't think we even need to say "Ron you did something bad." I do think
> that Ron contributed to a harmful perception that damages those who would
> use and contribute to global in Debian.
I wouldn't support a decision where we state that Ron did something bad. It
would be unneeded blaming (especially in a TC decision), and unnecessarily
agressive.
I'd support a decision handing the package to better hands though. For me, it
is now obvious that there exists a group of maintainers out there who would do
better service to the maintenance of global, than is currently done.
> If we can find a path forward that gets a new global into Debian, I'd be
> happy only offering advice. If we get stuck doing that, I think we need
> to overrule something.
Sure, absolutely. But its really also a question of timing, and allowing Ron
to tell the TC (in direct words, through further NAK'ing, or through inaction)
"fine, I've won another release with global v5 in, I'll let the package go
after the release of stretch", we will have rewarded stop-energy and inertia,
over service to our users.
Although we probably haven't reached consensus, I'd like to see this subject
move forward; what about the following ballot (with options to be refined, of
course):
A) Using §6.1.5, the TC offers advice (insert Sam's advice above) about the
maintenance of src:global.
B) Using §6.1.2, the TC decides that the src:global maintainer is now (insert
name)
C) Further discussion
--
Cheers,
OdyXAttachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.