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

Re: *UNAPPROVED* dpkg nmu

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote:

> * Adam Heath <doogie@brainfood.com> [2004-02-27 20:53]:
> > I see you sent me a *private* mail about.  That is not how you
> > discuss dpkg.  I will not participate in any discussion about dpkg
> > that isn't public.  If you want to discuss dpkg, then resend your
> > mail publically.  I will  have *none* of these backdoor meetings.
> Just a note about the "backdoor meeting" which was organized by me.
> Wichert Akkerman was invited to a conference in Spain and I thought
> this would be a good opportunity to discuss dpkg - both multi-arch
> support as well as how more volunteers can get involved in dpkg as its
> development has been very stale in the last few months.  Since the
> meeting was arranged with Wichert, this is clearly not a "backdoor
> meeting" or anything hidden; you were not invited because the meeting
> was in Europe and airfare would have been quite expensive for Debian
> to pay.

Backdoor means not public.  This was not announced in public, nor were the

> Unfortunately, the day before the conference, Wichert announced that
> he could not come because of work related reasons.  Having invited
> some people for the dpkg meeting already, we suggested a productive
> compromise: Wichert would write down his thoughts about dpkg, and we'd
> discuss them and write a summary.  The summary was posted to you in
> private mail - I'd like to see it posted to the -dpkg list for public
> discussion, but first Wichert has to post his summary.  I asked him in
> private mail to do so, but it has not happened yet.  Once Wichert
> forwards his message, Scott will post the summary from the meeting.

What's with all the private talk?  You keep making my point.

For those not following, this is your DPL suggesting to keep things private.
Think really hard when the next vote comes up.  I know what mine will be.

> In any case, there was nothing secret about this meeting as you seem
> to suggest.

It was secret, as it was not public.

Reply to: