Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> writes:
> On 2004-07-14 19:42:22 +0100 Chris Cheney <ccheney@cheney.cx> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:00:42PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>>> On 2004-07-14 18:03:28 +0100 Chris Cheney <ccheney@cheney.cx> wrote:
>>>> [...] using our conversation that I mentioned as proof that
>>>> ftpmaster can sometimes be reasonable.
>>> Who had? [...]
>> Perhaps I misconstrued what was written... since several of the emails
>> were from you.
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/07/msg00025.html
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/07/msg00041.html
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/07/msg00042.html
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/07/msg00058.html
>
> I have no idea why you took mine as "proof" of anything, other than
> that amd64 people knew more than was in the GR. I was asking what the
> problem is, more-or-less. Or, to repeat from the second of those URLs:
> OK, so the GR is seeking to overrule ftpmasters? Were these emails
> sent to them about amd64 cc'd anywhere public?
>
> Still no answer, yet clearly read by both Josselin and yourself. I
> wouldn't be surprised if the GR was silently ignored(!) until it is
> obvious why it is a valid GR.
The decision being made by ftp-master seems to be to block amd64 from
sid by not making a decision (action through inaction).
As the last mails have shown a discussion has taken place hidden
inside the ftp-master team without making it public or posting its
result or progress information.
And any information leaked out was to be considered private (secret?).
Hell, that sounds like a ftp-master cabal. So much for openness. :(((((
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: