I'm writing with my DPL hat on in the role of a facilitator/mediator. I have no actual power in this situation and it is entirely reasonable to ignore me. I feel very uncomfortable with a change as big as this revert happening this late in the release cycle. I think that my reading of how the release team handles issues is sufficient to say that they almost certainly have serious concerns about that big of a change this late too. And yet, the lack of a clear reconfirmation in this time line even given the wonderfully civil discussion is telling. My proposal--which again I have no power to implement--is that we go forward with the current default. However, we remain open to a revert in the first couple of buster point releases. The criteria for that revert should be based on the actual severity and frequence of problems our users run into, but should specifically exclude the blanket reluctance to make a change like that in a point release. We would still need adequate testing of such a revert. So, what I think this would require to be a viable proposal is: * an ack from the buster stable release managers that if we run into real problems they would accept such a change * an ack from gnome that if we do need to do a revert we'd be willing to revert in unstable and testing for a while to do as much testing of the revert in those environments. Obviously such testing is imperfect given that gnome may (hopefully will) have moved on in Debian by then. Again, feel free to ignore this message entirely if it does not move the conversation forward. I'm just seeing a stuck issue and proposing a way to try and unstick it. --Sam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature