On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 06:58:02PM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > Re-reading the bug log and the thread I still cannot understand why you > > > downgraded the bug in the first place. There is no explanation in the BTS > > > and the downgrade was done before Branden investigation that would have > > > let X entering sarge in any case. You might want to excuse if i missed > > > something but i can't access emails on a daily base but i am sure you can > > > be so kind to give an explanation. > > > > I'll need to respond to this (later) in the morning. > > Ok. I just want to have a clear picture of the situation, since we are a > team and we should work as such I think certain decisions (like X or Y > should be handled in this way for this reason) should be agreed before > rather than after. I'll agree that I should've explained it, but I don't like the suggestion of package management by committee; we'll never get anything done. When I told Warren Turkal he was welcome to maintain libX11, I didn't tell him to run every commit through a build, to test on all the release architectures before he released, or whatever. All I said was to remember what he was working on, and decide accordingly. I think the XSF members have this much sense; just use your head. Anyway, back to the bug. It doesn't cause serious data loss, doesn't break unrelated apps, etc. It belongs as an important bug at most IMO; if 'the X server segfaults when I run it with this revision of a PCI Matrox' is important, then there's no way this bug should be higher. It's an occasional annoyance, and nothing more (IMO). > > > If you want at act as a release manager, you should in the first place > > > stop telling people that they are stupid or whatever and start to > > > cooperate with everyone, even with "clueless" people (this is not meant to > > > be an attack to Adrian at all, but a general reference to less experienced > > > users) and give good explanations to your actions wearing the RM hat. > > > > I said the suggestion was 'stupid', and I stick by it. I'm perfectly > > willing to co-operate with Adrian, but not to the point of yielding to > > his every suggestion - I have an opinion on some matters, and I'm not > > willing to let everyone trample all over it. > > We all have opinions, neither i say that we need to accept everything from > everyone, but upon a rejection I like to see a good explanation that makes > 'stupid' a certain suggestion. BTW, I never said Adrian was 'stupid', not at all. I was just stating my opinion on his opinion on the bug. > > The RM position is all yours if Branden agrees. > > This is where imho you miss the point. It is OUR decision who has to take > the position as RM inside OUR team. Noone until now has been stepping > forward and say: "hey i would like to take that responsability". > Now we are in the exactly the other situation with 2 candidates. I > believe that XFS should publically decide who can fit better that > position and with XFS i also mean our users and not just us. Ideally, yes, but I haven't traditionally seen this as how the XSF has managed. The only reason I put my hand up for it was because, as best I could tell at the time, no-one else had. I'll be relieved to escape the time pressure, tbh. I don't want to do it; I just said I would because no-one else was (again, as best I could tell). That kind of leaves you per default, no? -- Daniel Stone <daniels@debian.org> Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature