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

Re: Bug #566650: Please unblock dtc 0.32.2-1

Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 02:17:54AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> I know what I wrote, I know what has been written to me. I've been told
>> that my message has been forwarded to the release team (however, it
>> never has been written to me that it has been forwarded to a public
>> list). It would take time (as I receive about 100 email a day and
>> because I don't remember who wrote it to me), but I could search in my
>> email backlog to prove it.
> <4C6A1DF0.4040207@funlabs.org>
>>> Please make sure that your future mails are send to out mailing-list.
>>> I hate private requests for many reasons... one of them is transparency.
>> Debian has the culture of transparency for absolutely every single bit.
>> However, it might not be suitable on all cases, and I haven't seen
>> anywhere that this should be an enforced policy.
> You were told this (quoted with permission of faw):
> | We started discussing some aspects of PHP but we didn't talk about
> | DTC, we would really prefer to discuss it thru the list, to be open
> | and transparent about the process and to be fair with others
> | dealing with different aspects of the release process.
> You were also told:
> | I just want to tell you that you should do it rather earlier
> | than later.  Even if it is a plan right now, you should make it
> | public an known so we can talk about it and have a public open
> | reference about the plan, goals and possible actions
>> In my case, I was kindly asking for an advice, and it was my preference
>> to keep it private. Is this wrong? What's wrong in asking advices to the
>> release team privately, and tell about my plans for the release, if I
>> wish to do so? Just one example out of many I have in mind: I might
>> dislike to have some of my business competitors to read, and forecast my
>> next move.
> Debian isn't about business competition.  We did tell you to submit it to a
> public list, AFAICS you did not followup, not even stating such a reason,
> neither.

Ok, ok, ok... I failed to write publicly, misunderstood that it was
required in order to forward my email to the public list to have an
answer, and wrongly thought that my questions were asked to the RT as I
read "I've forwarded" which mislead me to believe no further action was
to be done to have the discussion started. Well understood. I fully
acknowledged the miscommunication issue at least twice in this thread
already. I can even do it a 3rd time: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima

Can we move forward and discuss what should be done now, rather than
discussing the past?


Reply to: