[Dropped Cc; what does any of this have to do with the DPL?]
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 04:32:49PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:30:50PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> >> Wait, really? What happened to respect by maintainers for the
> >> project?
> > "The project" is not "a set of random maintainers who have a filename
> > conflict with you".
> Sorry, I don't understand the above sentence. Do you mean that it is
> impossible to come to a consensus when one maintainer of a relevant
> package disagrees? I can understand that claim, but it doesn't seem
> to be the same as the sentence above.
I mean that it is not reasonable to expect a maintainer to recognize a
"consensus" among other people who are not the maintainer, where his or her
package is concerned, except when that's a consensus of a
constitutionally-empowered body such as the TC.
> > We have a constitution to *prevent* such decisions
> > being made by a tyranny of the majority of the minority.
> Thanks, that perhaps suggests a method for resolving this. Could you
> point to the section of the constitution you are referring to?
I am bewildered that I should need to point this out:
6. Technical committee
6.1. Powers
The Technical Committee may:
[...]
2. Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap.
In cases where Developers need to implement compatible technical
policies or stances (for example, if they disagree about the priorities
of conflicting packages, or about ownership of a command name, or about
which package is responsible for a bug that both maintainers agree is a
bug, or about who should be the maintainer for a package) the technical
committee may decide the matter.
As you seem to be involved with various process discussions within Debian,
may I gently suggest that you familiarize yourself with our governing
document? :)
> > NMUs are *not* a tool for forcing a maintainer to accept a technical
> > outcome he disagrees with.
> Sure. To be clear, I should say that I am not advocating that anyone
> NMU the node or nodejs package. What I meant (and I could easily be
> wrong) is that when the maintainer of a package is not working on an
> important bug and has not given any reason, Debian does not need to be
> held hostage by that.
Ok - sorry, that's not what came across in your message, it's possible I
overlooked some context up-thread that would have made this clear. Yes, a
bug that's been filed against the package and gone unanswered by the
maintainer is fair game for NMUing. OTOH, a bug that the maintainer
disagrees is a bug would not be fair game.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120501220033.gd5...@virgil.dodds.net
