>>>>> "Ole" == Ole Streicher <oleb...@debian.org> writes:
Georg commented that if we're going to delegate to D-I, we should hurry
up and do so unless this turn into another TC failure.
I personally think we've taken long enough this is already a TC failure
and have expressed regret for my actions that contributed to that.
Marga took an action to close this bug at the previous meeting. I don't
think I'm slowing her down by continuing to try and explain where I see
things.
I'm certainly not asking her to wait on this discussion.
>> So, I think the TC will make its decisions on a technical
>> foundation a lot less frequently than you do. That said, I do
>> think an understanding of which technical factors are important
>> is something we need to do.
>>
>> If there are things I can to to help you believe that we did
>> consider the points you think important I'd like to do that. If
>> you can think of things I can do to help you gain confidence that
>> we have heard you, please let me know.
>>
>> That said, I'm hoping you can respect me when I say that hearing
>> you does not mean agreeing with you--not even about what factors
>> are important in making a decision.
Ole> Sorry, but a discussion is "just hearing" me, which "does not
Ole> mean agreeing" with me. It is the exchange of arguments. So, if
Ole> you disagree on the technical aspects, please put your
Ole> arguments here. If you think we don't discuss the important
Ole> factors for making a decision, please move the discussion into
Ole> the right direction. See if you can convince me. And/or see if
Ole> you can convince d-i.
I'm sorry, but I'd like to be heard differently. I offered to do what I
could to give you confidence that your points had been heard, understood
and considered. Now I'm hearing you say that I'm obligated to discuss
with you and to try and convince you that I'm right. I disagree that
would be valuable here. I'm not interested in persuading you. If it's
valuable to you, I'd be happy to work with you to understand what I see
is important here, but that's very different to having a discussion
where one side persuades another or where we make a decision together.
My personal opinion is that collaborative discussion is the kind of
discussion you should try to have with the D-I team early in the buster
cycle.
Ole> But please be transparent in your work.
All the discussions we've had on this issue have been in public email or
public IRC logs; I think we've been fairly transparent.
My reading of that is that the consensus of the TC is that the D-I team
should make this decision.
I'm not sure the TC as a whole has a consistent rationale.
For myself, I believe the important questions are
1) Should the user be shown a lists of blends during the install process
and asked to choose from them.
2) For any given change, is the particular change mature enough to
include.
I believe there are important issues to balance in terms of number of
prompts, style of user interaction, and risk we're willing to take at
various points in the release process. I believe the D-I team has
traditionally balanced those issues quite well, so I'd delegate this
decision to them.
I think the question of whether to use package priority, whether to
merge things into tasksel, and the specific content of the menus are
secondary to those two technical questions above.
I have reason to believe some other TC members have thinking similar to
mine. However, the area where I think we have a consensus is on who
should decide here, *not* on why that's the right decision.
Sometimes not having agreement on the why is a sign of false consensus.
Especially when we're choosing not to act, and in this particular
instance, I don't think this is a false consensus.
I think voting on this might have been a good idea, but Marga does not
wish to call for votes on her ballot and I do not wish to force the
issue by calling for a vote on someone else's ballot.
