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

Re: Disputes between developers - draft guidelines

(I've taken leader@ and debian-ctte@ off the CC list.  I hope that
meets with people's approval.  If not, or if owner@bugs wants out too,
please let me know.)

Adam Heath writes ("Re: Disputes between developers - draft guidelines"):
> I have been seen in public reopening bugs that have been incorrectly
> closed by bad changelog entries.  I have done this with my
> owner@bugs hat on.  However, this wrong.  I still feel very strongly
> on this issue, but I should have done it as a converned(very)
> developer.

I think you're being overly cautious there, personally.  But of course
that's up to you.

> As an owner@bugs person, I feel that owner@bugs should be hands off in any
> decisions that regard the content of the bugs in our system.  We can do code,
> we can otherwise maintain the system.  However, any decisions as to the state
> of various bugs(other than bugs.debian.org and debbugs) stored in the system
> should be left to those invovled.

I think I disagree.  When I first set up the BTS there was a lot of
implied policy as well as just technology, about how you were supposed
to use it, and I think that has carried on.  What's the point of
inventing new features if you don't have an idea of what they're
supposed to be used for ?

That's not to say that everyone who is willing to help run the
infrastructure should be required to get dragged into disputes about
process - so I have no problem at all if you don't feel you want to
get involved personally.

But, I do think that, if you choose, you and the other people who run
the BTS do have a special position and a special authority about how
the system should be used.  That's why I want to include the BTS
admins in the drafting process, and make sure that you pretty much
agree with it (or at least don't disagree too much).

>From a practical point of view, I think the parts that talk about BTS
etiquette will have more force if they have owner@bugs's official
stamp of approval.

Anyway, even if you don't want to get involved `officially', of course
I'm very happy to receive your comments.  Detailed response below.

> Also, for the record, shortly before this email was sent by Ian, I closed a
> bug(with a rather terse reply) filed by Ian against dpkg(the whole md5sum
> issue with 1.10).  I stand by my email.  If Ian would have done the research
> first, he would have seen that all his complaints had been previously
> discussed.

This `disputes' draft has been sitting in my mailbox for some time
waiting to be tarted up and sent out; the only reason both of these
were sent out together is that I tend to do my email in batches.
So, I assure you there's no connection.

> > 2. Distinguish flameage from technical disputes and procedural errors
> >
> > [turgid prose]
> Too many large words.  Brain on overload.  Simplify this whole paragraph.
> Not to mention it's not a paragraph, but a single runon sentence.

You're right.  I've rewritten this in my current draft, which I'll
post at the end of this mail batch.

The rest of your comments seem specifically motivated by #164889.  If
you want to complain to me about that specific disagreement, can I
suggest we take it to a different forum ?  Private mail, or the dpkg
list, or the BTS, would seem more appropriate.  I'll reply separately.


Reply to: