Hi Bart, I've been sitting here, for an hour, pondering whether I should actually hit "Send". I admit I have difficulty trying to understand your reasons, and I'm beginning to doubt that these rest in the subject matter, itself. Perhaps you simply disagree with the concept of DM, in general. Or perhaps this matter simply became personal somewhere along the road. Perhaps I've used some unlucky wording, somewhere, or perhaps I've missed some subtle hints from your side. If so, please accept my apologies. Also, please excuse that bit of sarcasm, in the second half. I know that's crossing a line. But I really *am* failing to find different words. So, perhaps this mail does *not* make things better. But I happen to care about this, too, and so here's my reply: On Friday 16 November 2012, Bart Martens wrote: > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:32:29AM +0100, Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote: > > So far the only result has been a new bug report against my package, and > > some controversy around how to handle this > > The easy way would have been to upload a fix for bug 689982 in unstable and > request an unblock. Instead you questioned and lowered the severity of the > bug, and uploaded a newer upstream release to unstable, so now it's more > difficult to get the bug fixed in wheezy. I'll fill in a few blanks, for you: - I have added a first reply to the bug report within 100 *minutes* after you filed it. In this initial feedback, I pointed you to a preview of my fix, *and* I stated explicitly, that I intended to upload a new upstream release, first, *and* that I did not agree with severity serious. - After four days without any reply, I went ahead and lowered severity to "normal", with a more elaborate explanation, and with you on CC. - After twelve more days without any reply, I went ahead, and uploaded the new upstream release, as announced. Up to this point, I had *no* indication, whatsoever, that you did not agree with my assessment. - On the same day (Octobor, 24), I contacted you in PM, asking whether you would be willing to help me with upload permissions, now. - I did receive a reply, this time. In entirety (omitting salutation, citation, and signature) it was "The issue has not yet been fixed in wheezy." - Still on the same day, I replied, pointing out that I did not agree with severity "serious", that I had changed severity on October, 12, and asked you to comment, why you insisted on RC status. - One week later, - without any reply - I posted to the list, again. - As a reaction to this, you *finally* cared to give a rough explanation of your point of view, in that mail on Nov, 2, you are referring to. > This would have been prevented > via sponsorship. As I wrote before on 2 Nov 2012, on copyright and > licenses you seem to need a sponsor. Excuse me, if there is a bit of sarcasm showing in the following paragraph. I don't want that, but in all sincerity, I'm completely at a loss, as to how to reply, otherwise: Do you think that Henrique Holschuh and Steve Langasek seem to need a sponsor? Or did you not read the other replies on debian-policy? Or did you fail to acknowledge that these diverged from your point of view? Yes, the copyright file had bugs beyond this discussion. I have acknowledged that more than once. Yes, I can see your interpretation of policy on this point. No, your interpretation of policy on this point is *not* the one and only possible reading. And, disagreeing with your reading, I seem to find myself in prominent company. Look, yes, I could have just gone ahead and accepted your initial assessment. But I did not, precisely *because* I am trying to make informed and reasonable decisions in such matters. A process, which involves me forming my own thoughts, and putting my view to discussion, when it differs from yours. I feel that's not merely my "right", but it's absolutely my responsibility as a DM. And also, I do think that if you do hold a firm opinion on a subject, and you do care about it, then you should communicate that a bit sooner, and a bit more clearly. That, too is a question of respect and responsibility - towards a random DM as much as to the project. Regards Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.