Re: Bug#224742: Related to this issue...
Scripsit Steve Greenland <steveg@moregruel.net>
> On 27-Dec-03, 17:28 (CST), Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> wrote:
> > The non-tecnical issue - namely his attempts to threaten Enrico into
> > submission by abusing his BTS power rather than explaining why he
> > thinks as he does *is* in my book completely unreasonable.
> Why is that a problem, yet Enrico's attempt to bludgeon AJ into
> submission by repeatedly re-opening a wish-list item
How can a wishlist item be used to "bludgeon" in any way?
I have asked this repeatedly and not yet gotten any answer.
> But that's basically what the constitution says: the maintainer of a
> package has the biggest gun with regard to that package.
Noone has ever contested that.
The point of the thead is that the maintainer is *also* trying to have
the biggest gun with respect to what others *think* about the package.
That is fundamentally wrong.
> Since Enrico's suggestion is purely aesthetic, it's perfectly within
> the maintainer's purview to reject it.
Noone has ever contested that.
> Closing the "bug" is one acceptable way to do so.
There is a "wontfix" tag for that. Rather, closing the wishlis itemt
is a way of asking the submitter to acknowlege that his request was
silly in the first place. Refusing to let the submitter *not*
acknowledge this, under threat of BTS exclusion, is repression of the
submitter's right to have his own thoughts about the issue.
> Repeatedly re-opening a bug because one disagrees with the response is
> pretty much unacceptable,
*Not* reopening would be an admission of having been wrong in filing
the original request.
> and does constitute abuse of the BTS.
No·
> There are superior ways to appeal a maintainer decision.
The submitter did not wish to appeal - just to go on record as
disagreeing.
--
Henning Makholm "Make it loud, make it complicated, make it long,
and make it up if you have to, but it'll work all right."
Reply to: