Re: PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute.
Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes:
> * Andrew Suffield (asuffield@debian.org) [040728 20:25]:
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 07:00:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>> > ===========================================================================
>> > The Debian project hereby resolves:
>> >
>> > - That the developers in charge for adding the architecture identified by
>> > dpkg as "amd64", hereinafter "amd64", to the "unstable" archive, should
>> > explain publicly (via debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org) the problems
>> > which delay this action.
>
>> This is a no-op by rule of the constitution.
Might be a no-op but its an ultimatum of a sort.
You could formulate it as:
That the developers in charge for adding the architecture identified by
dpkg as "amd64", hereinafter "amd64", to the "unstable" archive, is
violating the constituion and is warned to follow it.
Is that less of a no-op?
> The developers may issue positions of the day (and this one could be
> considered as one, as this doesn't try to force somebody to do work,
> but to say: "we would like if this happens"). However, whether
> publically telling somebody what exactly would he should do, would
> really help to solve the problem, is something different. (Same is
> true for all other issues in this GR-draft.)
>
> So, for me, this GR wouldn't conflict with the constitution, but I
> doubt very much that this draft is part of solving our problems.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Andi
Failure to conform to the projects wishes would mean the person should
resign from his job or get disappointed. He wouldn't be the right
representative for Debian if he is acting against Debians will
(without giving reasons, which he should have voiced in the GR).
The thread of appointing someone else is the only thread Debian has to
force an issue. I see nothing (technically) wrong with utilizing that
force.
MfG
Goswin
PS: I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the actual GR here, just
saying what I read into it. The GR is mood now anyway. The RM team has
vetoed amd64 in sarge due to lack of time.
Reply to: