Bug#846002: blends-tasks must be priority:standard and not make a mess out of tasksel menu
Am 31.01.2017 um 21:45 schrieb Sam Hartman:
> Ole> Hmm, IMO there are two things here: First, in our constitution,
> Ole> the installer team has no specific granted rights, apart from
> Ole> being maintainers of the relevant packages. This makes the Ole>
> conflict primarily a conflict between developers having Ole>
> different opinions about how to solve a certain problem. A Ole>
> decision here falls under the rights granted to the Technical Ole>
> Team by the Project leader.
> I think you mean by the constitution.
> I could see that argument.
> Ole> And I would expect that a decision Ole> would be made on some
> technical foundation.
> A lot of people expect that. A lot of what the TC does involves
> understanding how to balance technical and non-technical factors. It
> seems entirely appropriate for the TC to look at the technical
> issues here and decide who should be making the decision rather than
> to make a decision.
> What I think several of us did is look at the technical details and
> decide we believe that the installer team was the right set of people
> to make this technical decision.
I must say that I find your behaviour a bit opaque here, which is (as
far as I understand it) is not the goal of the TC. The idea is not to
just have a court which just releases its final (no-)decision, but to
sort out technical arguments for a final decision. This is at least how
I read your docs . If this is not the case, maybe they should be
adjusted to be not misleading here.
> So, I think the TC will make its decisions on a technical foundation
> a lot less frequently than you do. That said, I do think an
> understanding of which technical factors are important is something
> we need to do.
> If there are things I can to to help you believe that we did
> consider the points you think important I'd like to do that. If you
> can think of things I can do to help you gain confidence that we have
> heard you, please let me know.
> That said, I'm hoping you can respect me when I say that hearing you
> does not mean agreeing with you--not even about what factors are
> important in making a decision.
Sorry, but a discussion is "just hearing" me, which "does not mean
agreeing" with me. It is the exchange of arguments. So, if you disagree
on the technical aspects, please put your arguments here. If you think
we don't discuss the important factors for making a decision, please
move the discussion into the right direction. See if you can convince
me. And/or see if you can convince d-i.
But please be transparent in your work.
Just writing an unspecific "hearing does not mean agreeing" doesn't help
to solve the conflict.