Dear TC, I would like to react to Ian's message, that uses words like "deliberate dismantling" that can be interpreted as if the misbehaviour is on my side, and will add a remark on the fact that Policy maintainers have no "veto" in contrary to what seemed implied in November's TC meeting on IRC.
First, there is no dismantling of the Debian menu in the Policy. Ian calls this menu "comprehensive", but the reality is that its coverage is patchy, in sharp contrast with the "must" directive in the Policy. The patch applied changed this to a "should", which is a strong statement that is ground for overriding maintainers refusing patches with no reason. This adjustement of the Policy to the current practice was the core answer to the original requirement in #707851. On top of this change I wanted to take the opportunity to brush up the Policy by describing how to use FreeDesktop menu entries in Debian. Very unfortunately, this gave the impression that one menu system replaces the other, but in practice it is two parallel changes. This is why I am asking the TC to refrain from refactoring that part of our work: it has full consensus, and to be honest, I would feel it a big slap in my face (in the sense that it would call for me reconsider if my contribution is really welcome) if the TC would bypass the Policy change process to modify the changes related to the FreeDesktop menu. Ian's message goes in length on obstructive behaviours. I disagree with such behaviours and I think that the TC should override maintainers who deliberately block the work of others for tactical reasons. The obstruction discussed here is the one of a Policy editor who ignored the Policy changes process and engaged in an blocking strategy by withdrawing the discussion and then reverting the consensus-driven changes unilaterally. In the Policy changes process there is no vote and there is no veto. Bill had ample time to make his points when the discussion was opened. See through the BTS entry: I took all the time needed - more than eight months ! - to address people's reactions and seek consensus. The consensus was assessed by a Policy editor, which is the final point of the process. Bill's behaviour turns the whole discussion into a waste of time, and leaves the Policy in a state that does not reflect the reality. Far from increasing the coverage of the Debian menu systems, Bills commit reversal undermines the value of Debian's policy manual and sends the message that the personal opinion of Policy editors has precedence on consensus (and the *work* that it represents to create that consensus). For this reason, sorry to repeat myself, I am asking the TC to please rule on the question that I raised: should Bill's commit reversal be overriden ? Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141223031101.GA14049@aqwa.igloo
