[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: unauthorized upload of xfree86 4.3.0-1 to unstable

[Forgive the crosspost, but I think each paragraph touches on different
issues, and that all 3 is the best. Please Cc me if you don't reply to
-x, as that's the only one of these lists I'm on.]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:04:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> FYI, for those who didn't know already, an upload identifying itself as
> xfree86 4.3.0-1, not authorized by me, was made by Daniel Stone to
> Debian unstable early Tuesday morning UTC.  It was UNACCEPTed by katie
> at the direction of the Debian archive administrators[1], which spared
> me the trouble of uploading an epoched xfree86 to unstable (1:4.2.1-16).

Thus, speaking clearly, unstable has xfree86 4.2.1-15.

> I will note that Daniel Stone and I have already had a phone
> conversation about this -- after he did his upload and I expressed my
> alarm on IRC.  The conversation was fairly long and perfectly civil, but
> neither of us changed our minds about the fundamental actions taken.  At
> least as of 36 hours ago or so, he continued to feel he did the right
> thing, and I continue to feel he did not.  I will not attempt to
> represent his point of view, or mine, as to the nitty-gritty specifics
> of why he felt he was in the right in this particular case, and why I
> feel he was wrong.  Discussion of that should take place on debian-x.

I didn't actually say that I was 'in the right', or make any sort of
claim towards being so (in fact, I remember quite explicitly saying I
wasn't ...). I elaborated to Branden my reasons for doing so, as I felt
he probably deserved an explanation.

I did, however, state that I felt that 4.3.0-1 was by far the superior
base to work from in sid, for a number of reasons (not least that
propagation to sarge would put the XSF in the position of having to
maintain two codebases, not three).

> Organizationally, we have more experience with single-maintainer
> packages, and I think we have to evolve a bit with respect to team
> maintenance a bit more.  Fundamentally, I think team-maintenance of
> packages has to be grounded on mutual trust among the members of the
> team.  I personally feel that my trust was betrayed in this situation.
> If you think I should not feel this way, please explain why.

I think another issue Branden was possibly trying to raise - that we
was raised privately - is the team-maintainership model where you have a
leader/follower(s), and whether that needs to be formalised, if/when the
follower(s) can disobey the leader, et al. XSF was very much
leader/follower, as you can see here, as opposed to models of other
teams, which are very much equal/meritorious.


Daniel Stone                                                <daniels@debian.org>

Attachment: pgp4G7U_K2nAV.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: