On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:02:47AM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: > On Tuesday 22 March 2005 08:22, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:39:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote: > > > > No. There needs to be some override procedure like we have for > > > > maintainers not doing their job. But that's beyond the scope of this > > > > discussion. > > > > > > In this case, there is nothing to override, because the overrides are > > > actually changing something in the teams so that the team changes their > > > mind (that might actually mean there is nobody who opposed the change in > > > the team anymore, in a worst-case scenario). > > > > > > So, this should not be a point of contention in this sphere at all. It > > > belongs in some other level. Let's drop this point as a contention > > > point, then? > > > > No, this is the main problem, that there is no counter power or limitation > > to what they can decide. We saw this already in the amd64 GR issue, and we > > can either accept their decission or have them resign in masse and be > > prepared to replace them. > > > > There is no accountability, and altough the DPL supposedly mandated them, > > he has no actual power to do anything about it. > > If (for whatever reasons) none of the people behind the "release team" is > willing to work on an arch, there is nothing anybody can do to "force" them > to. Not tech-ctte, not the DPL, no GR, nothing! Yes, they can (and if they > become crazy in the head they probably should) be removed from their position > then but this doesn't magically do the work needed for a release.
The problem is when they actively oppose work. Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
