Re: We have a problem
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 05:39:15PM +0100, Colin Tuckley wrote:
> On 06/05/15 16:53, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
>
> > There is no requirement, but it has been common practice and is
> > common courtesy to attempt to contact a person before removing
> > them.
>
> Indeed, but recently there have been so many non-responsive people
> that it's made the teams job almost impossible.
>
We are talking about an email to a list or at most seven people. If they
don't respond fine, move ahead. Otherwise, at least hear what they
have to say.
> > The larger issue is I have had communications with Iain. He is
> > aware I now have more time I can and am spending on Debian.
> > Despite this, he chose to remove me without even so much as a note
> > that he was doing this.
>
> That is partly the result of a discussion several of us have been
> having on #debian-hams. Those of us who have been active recently have
> pretty much decided that since it's so easy to re-add a name, removing
> them isn't a problem. You are the only person so far who has objected.
>
So because I (and others) don't hang out on an IRC channel it is ok to
believe we do not longer desire to contribute and it is ok to exclude us?
> > I don't have an issue removing people who are unresponsive. I have
> > not been unresponsive. Honestly, I don't agree that a list of only
> > 4-8 people it is really all that difficult to figure out who is
> > doing what.
>
> Actually - yes it does! If you have to email 8 people of whom 6 are
> unresponsive it delays getting anything done.
They are all on the hamradio maintainers list. An email to debian-hams
and your are covered. Not to mention it really is not that time consuming
to copy 7 or 8 email addresses into a CC field.
Suggesting it delays getting things done is the equivalent of saying
group maintainership delays getting things done. If it is such a great delay,
we shouldn't have group maintained packages.
>
> > I recall seeing Thomas' email he had a new upstream with a bug fix
> > or two but I don't recall Iain telling the list he was working on
> > an updated package with the new version.
>
> That is because he didn't. I packaged the new version (with input from
> Thomas to fix the GCC5 bug). I did an upload and then we discovered
> that it would not build on kfreebsd. Since Iain has experience there
> he offered to fix it.
>
> > It shows the same lack of respect for other team members to
> > summarily remove them from the package as hijacking a package does
> > to a package with a sole maintainer.
>
> Nonsense!
>
I respect your right to disagree with my opinion. I don't accept it is
"nonsense."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)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=rKGR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: