On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 05:07:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Anthony Towns <email@example.com> > > I have _entirely_ removed myself from any influence in this situation. > You cannot do that while you're still release manager. Yes, I can: 6. Technical committee 6.1. Powers The Technical Committee may: 3. Make a decision when asked to do so. Any person or body may delegate a decision of their own to the Technical Committee, or seek advice from it. "Any person or body may delegate a decision of their own to the Technical Committee." Seems straightforward to me. > The project has vested in you the authority to be the one who says > "Okay, today sarge is ready to release. From now on, stable means > starge." Uh, the question at hand is whether "main is free from non-DFSG-free things that aren't programs or licenses" needs to be true for sarge to release. And I've delegated that question to the tech ctte. > There is good evidence that your decision about when to say that will > be influenced by the outcome of the upcoming vote. No, I will not be making the aformentioned decision. I've delegated it to the tech ctte. If they choose not to make the decision either, and the GR doesn't make the decision clear either, then I've no idea what'll happen. Presumably someone will have the gumption to work something out. The question of whether sarge is ready to be released will presumably not have any new SC implications once the aformentioned decision has been made. > You have repeatedly > been asked a simple question about how you expect each possible > outcome of the vote will actually affect *your* subsequent decision of > when to release. You have repeatedly refused to answer that simple > question. That's nice. I've repeatedly told people that asking me questions isn't the right way to resolve this issue. They've repeatedly refused to follow that advice. Let's all go commit seppuku in our shame, shall we? > > If a general resolution is needed, everyone else's vote counts > > exactly the same as mine does. > You are forcing everyone else's votes to be based on imperfect > information. No, I'm not: my opinion on this issue is _utterly irrelevant_. I won't be making the decision, and I don't have any secret knowledge passed down through generations that has any bearing on the subject. If you wish to rely on my opinions, give them the authority you apparently think they deserve; "AJ as Debian Dictator" is just a GR away too, you know. If you want to rely on your _own_ opinion though -- which is what GRs are about -- you need to work out how to form them on your own from primary sources, not rely on me to give you something you can apply either the "AJ is smart, I agree with him" formula, or the "AJ is a fuckwit, I disagree with him" formula. > A part of the project is trying to send you the message that they want > you to release sarge on the original timescale, irrespective of > whether it gets completely purged of the non-free things that your > interpretation of the previous SC did not consider DFSG-critical. Geez, are you all a bunch of philosophers trying to turn me into a solipsist or something? The correct phrasing is "A part of the project thinks it's best to release on the original timescale [...]". This is not about me. Various folks' obsession with trying to make it about me, well, it's actually kind of flattering I guess, if in a fairly sick way, but putting personality before technicality in that manner isn't the way to make a good operating system. > Those people are considering various ways of formally phrasing that > message. If you want to send me a message, you open up your email client, put "firstname.lastname@example.org" in the To: field, something short and descriptive that summarises your topic in the "Subject:" field, and the message you're trying to send in the body. If what you're saying isn't clear, I'll be happy to discuss it with you until it is. OTOH, if you don't say something interesting, or accurate, I might not pay much attention, or give much of a response. I don't think there's much left to say about this issue that's interesting, in particular. What's left is to make two decisions. One is "Should the social contract be changed (again)". The other is "What should the release policy be, given the social contract". Obviously the answer to the latter may change depending on the answer to the former. I'll not be making either decision, no matter how many times you request it, or what message you try to send. (To repeat: the former's a matter for the developer body at large; the latter's a matter for the tech ctte, or the developer body via 4.1.3 or 4.1.4) Actually, that's not quite true; the reason I'm not willing to be particularly involved in these decisions is the personal attacks I've received as a consequence of my participation to date, and the way folks -- including yourself in the message I'm replying to -- are so heavily focussed on setting me up to take the fall for any problems. It's presumably possible to change that, but I doubt that's feasible, and even more strongly doubt the project would be willing to change that if it were. > They have asked you whether some of the ways being considered > will actually fail to send the message. You have refused to answer > that. What I have refused to do is tell you some way to trick me into making any further decisions on that topic. Maybe you'll figure out a way anyway, but I don't believe so. It's up to the tech ctte and you to work out what you want, and take responsibility for the consequences of whatever decision you come up with. > > I don't see any reason to "cooperate" with people who think the worst > > of me at every opportunity; there's no point to that. > It seems that you include the entire body of voting developers in that > description. They are the ones who need the information you're > withholding in order to make a meaningful, reasoned decision *now*. I'm afraid you're mistaken. Worse, none of this stuff is remotely difficult to follow. Think it through yourself, instead of running to me. Geez. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
Description: Digital signature