Hola Ole Streicher! First let me start by saying that I'm sorry that you felt accused. It was not my intention to turn this into some kind of finger pointing, and I'm genuinely sorry of my choice of language, as it clearly wasn't good enough to show that. Let me assure you that the only thing I want is to improve collaboration between teams, with the assumption that everyone involved wants what's best for Debian, even if sometimes it's hard to agree upon the details. > I already several times pointed that out: We did not "circumvent" the > collaboration with the tasksel maintainers. I understand that it was not your intention and that you acted in good faith. Please believe me when I say this. As human beings, sometimes we mean well but still make mistakes. The important point is to correct those mistakes and move on. > The relevant bug #758116 was assigned to tasksel for quite a long time, > and the proposed solution to create a package blends-tasks was announced > exactly there -- so the proposal was on the desk of the tasksel > maintainers, explicitly asking if they would veto. A short re-cap of that bug: 14 Aug 2014 to 3 Nov 2014: a long discussion involving quite a number of people regarding whether or not to include blends in the installer, discussing which blends to include, how to choose, etc. This died out with no action. 4 Nov 2015: a ping from you stating that you'd like to move on with this, followed by replies from KiBi & Andreas. 3 Apr 2016: a message from you stating your idea of the blends-task package, asking whether this would be vetoed or not. Silence. The package gets uploaded on 11 Apr 2016. i.e. 8 days after the question was made. 17 May 2016: KiBi makes a number of comments related to the end result and how he's not too happy about this. This leads to some discussion where basically the d-i people state that they are not happy with the implementation at the time, which leads to some wording improvements. 21 May 2016: KiBi notices how blends-tasks managed to get displayed in the intaller through using the severity: important field, and how he's not happy about this. Followed by some discussion that eventually dies out. > The first response from a tasksel maintainer came only five weeks later, > without a veto, but with a discussion that finally lead to the current > wording and selection. This is not what I would usually call "circumvent > collaboration". Clearly, we know already that KiBi is overloaded and can't always reply to emails within a week. Replying 5 weeks afterwards is not something that I fault him for. Particularly for a bug that was 1.5 years old. I understand that sometimes it might be better to get things done and then incorporate feedback as it comes instead of waiting for feedback until doing anything. This is generally ok if you are confident enough on your chosen solution. The problem with the above mentioned timeline is that when his concern was voiced regarding the way the items were added to the installer, this led to no action. And at no point a patch for tasksel was provided. > And, again, IMO the d-i team several times expressed their heavy > overload. It seems natural that working on the blends selection in > tasksel or the correct wording should be done by the people who actually > deal with the blends, avoiding to put additional load on them. Yes. But this does not mean that it should be done in a separate package. Adding items to the default installer (as opposed to a separate installer that includes additional udebs) should be done by adding those lines in tasksel, in agreement with the d-i maintainers. The fact that they are overloaded doesn't mean that they won't take a patch if you provide one. Again, please let me assure you that my only goal here is to improve collaboration. The ideal outcome of this issue for me would be that the new items get added to tasksel through an agreement between the involved parties and we can all move on to keep improving Debian. I apologise again for my choice of language in the previous mail. I hope my point is clearer now. Thanks. -- Regards, Marga
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature