On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> For me, believe it or not, it's very important not to betray the rest of
> developers with the actions I take in my role as a release person. Which
> is *not* to say I won't take any actions that makes feel one particular
> developer betrayed. But I do try to listen to what people have to say
> about how we release, I really do.
But developers are not the only infliences on your decision. You
have agreed to abide by the social contract, have you not? That, too,
should dictate how you act within your delegated role.
> In the case at hand, I can clearly see some people feel betrayed, and
> they're in the right to be so (though IMHO they're not in their right
> to speak for the developers at larege). However, and until proven
> wrong, I'm convinced the majority of developers don't feel betrayed by
> these "lenny-ignore" tags. I'm open to being proven wrong, though.
I have no idea about how betrayal features here: I just believe
that the decision to ignore these problems in Lenny fall beyond the
powers given to delegates.
There is nothing to feel betrayed by, all kinds of people make
all kinds of mistakes, and I do not live in a perpetual feeling of
victimization or betrayal.
> (If you must know, I also /personally/ believe that it's the task of
> those who feel betrayed to prove the release team wrong, and not the
> opposite. In my view, the release takes what is in unstable and tries to
> make something coherent of it. If you are outraged with what's in
> unstable, take it up with the people responsible for it. We just stamp a
> number in certain versions of packages, nothing more. Unstable is also
> "Debian", you know.)
In other words, if the release team is allowing packages to
violate the DFSG, one must prove something to the relese team (not sure
what that is, exactly). Is it in dispute that non-free blobs that
violate the DFSG actually violate the DFSG?
Or does the release team need someone to quote the contitution
and the social contrat to them? (I doubt that is the case, since the
RM"s are mostly quite competent)
Are you saying you want the project to show you that the SC is
still relevant, by passing yet another GR?
Please pardon my confusion, since you ought to be aware that
English is not my first (or second) language.
So, could you explain your view of the issue here, without
bringing in feeling of betrayal, which I do not comprehend?
manoj
--
"Survey says..." Richard Dawson, weenie, on "Family Feud"
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
