Hi Sam and Steve, On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 02:22:53PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > In any case, as long as we are actively discussing the technical means, > we have no intention to push for a rapid inclusion. To the contrary: > Please wait with applying the proposed changes as long as the discussion > progresses.
It seems to me that the discussion no longer progresses. On a very high level, it seems to me that we cannot move forward with this change, because Sam wants the input of Steve first and Steve does not reply at all. However, Steve just managed to upload pam, so he does something to the package. That seems strange to me at the very least. In essence, we have an unresolvable conflict between three parties. We want a patch included. Sam doesn't want the patch included without Steve's input. Steve doesn't want to give input. The natural route to solve such conflicts is the CTTE. I think Josch and myself have put up with a lot of patience. Basically, we've tried every constructive approach we could think of (including having a jitsi session with Sam). In that process, we've adapted the scope of our feature request due to input from Sam. We've let this take so long, because every time Sam replied, he was being constructive except for the fact that he blocked inclusion on input from Steve. Let's try with a deadline: Within three weeks I want Steve to reply to this bug in a way that addresses Sam's needs or Sam to agree with moving forward without Steve's review. Failing that, I will ask the CTTE to override the pam maintainers on this patch. Disclaimer: In the event that the CTTE has to rule on this, I will not cast a vote myself. Helmut
