Bug#841294: Overrule maitainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> writes:


    Didier> That code is now in Debian (experimental), so yes, I do
    Didier> expect you to act in good faith and report bugs you see. You
    Didier> are obviously quite versed in how 'global' works, and that's
    Didier> undoubtedly valuable to produce the best possible 'global'
    Didier> package.

Ron,  I would prefer that Didier use a different tone.
However, it's my opinion as someone who will be voting on this that
Didier is essentially right that your view of this situation and of the
responsibilities of a Debian maintainer are inconsistent with the
project as a whole.
You have continued to try and frame the discussion in the terms you
would prefer.
I have considered those terms, and I do not find framing the discussion
in those terms compelling.

In the language similar to the  IETF, used only because we're both familiar with
it, the technical issues surrounding global-6 and the question of
evidence regarding htags have been considered.  My judgment of the
discussion is that the rough consensus here is that those issues are not
significant compared to failing to upgrade global in six years.  That
is, we in this discussion have reach an informed opinion that those
issues are not significant enough to block.  It is my opinion you are in
the rough.

I think the question before the TC is (and is properly) how should
global-6 be maintained and whether you are the person to do that.

You have tried to frame it arguing that the version number doesn't
matter.
I absolutely agree.
However, the time at which Debian has last synced with upstream does
matter.
Six years is a long time.
Moreover, I believe that the standard you've used to evaluate whether
failing to sync for six years was acceptable is inconsistent with best
practices of the project.

--Sam