On 31/05/08 at 21:33 +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > So far, you (in <200805301141.02910.elendil@planet.nl> and > > <200805301718.06394.elendil@planet.nl>) and Charles Plessy > > (<20080530100316.GD4794@kunpuu.plessy.org>, > > <20080531152214.GA8808@kunpuu.plessy.org>) raised that concern. > > Sure, but Steve Langasek, Manoj and Frank Küster have been voicing what > are basically the same concerns. One problem with such discussions is that it's easy to misread people's mails, and attribute to them opinions that they don't have. The only mail from Frank Küster is <87ej7ide0q.fsf@riesling.zuerich.kuesterei.ch>, and he doesn't really say anything about that topic. Same with Manoj and Steve: they raised concerns, but not about excluding team-maintained or actively-maintained packages. (I might have missed a mail while rescanning the thread, of course) > > On the other hand, Bas Wijnen > > (<20080530101631.GA15849@a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl>) and I disagreed > > that a special consideration was needed. We can't just blindly add > > every suggestion that people propose, because that would make other > > people unhappy. > > Problem is you did not at the same time acknowledge that the concerns > themselves could be valid and that you were willing to discuss them > further and thus come to a different solution. This mail does do that. Every concern is worth listening to, and we made several changes to the DEP since the beginning of this discussion because of concerns that were raised. But it's not black and white, especially with a topic where different people might have had totally different experiences. > [...] > > > If you started to propose wordings that would suit you, instead of > > waiting for us to propose stuff by mind-reading, that would be a lot > > easier to listen to you. > > The thing is that I basically agreed with suggestions (or at least with > the intentions behind them) from others which were waved away. That is > not very motivating for writing other proposals. > IMO you first have to reach agreement on the principle you want to put > into words when there is such a clear difference; proposing variations on > the same text is only going to lead to frustration. That is why I started > presenting use cases in which I feel NMUs to be less appropriate (and > explaining my reasons in more detail). Discussing ideas and principles is a lot harder than discussing concrete proposals. Also, when listing use cases, it's difficult for an outsider to understand the underlying problem, and to generalize, which is necessary before something can be put into dev-ref. > From my perspective its your (plural) job as proposers/editors of the DEP > to put things together though. Sure. I'm not asking for perfect patches. But the "I'd like to see something like that in the DEP:" emails are a lot easier to answer than those discussing ideas and principles, where it's difficult to determine what the poster would exactly want to see changed. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature