[Forgive the crosspost, but I think each paragraph touches on different issues, and that all 3 is the best. Please Cc me if you don't reply to -x, as that's the only one of these lists I'm on.]
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:04:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > FYI, for those who didn't know already, an upload identifying itself as > xfree86 4.3.0-1, not authorized by me, was made by Daniel Stone to > Debian unstable early Tuesday morning UTC. It was UNACCEPTed by katie > at the direction of the Debian archive administrators[1], which spared > me the trouble of uploading an epoched xfree86 to unstable (1:4.2.1-16). Thus, speaking clearly, unstable has xfree86 4.2.1-15. > I will note that Daniel Stone and I have already had a phone > conversation about this -- after he did his upload and I expressed my > alarm on IRC. The conversation was fairly long and perfectly civil, but > neither of us changed our minds about the fundamental actions taken. At > least as of 36 hours ago or so, he continued to feel he did the right > thing, and I continue to feel he did not. I will not attempt to > represent his point of view, or mine, as to the nitty-gritty specifics > of why he felt he was in the right in this particular case, and why I > feel he was wrong. Discussion of that should take place on debian-x. I didn't actually say that I was 'in the right', or make any sort of claim towards being so (in fact, I remember quite explicitly saying I wasn't ...). I elaborated to Branden my reasons for doing so, as I felt he probably deserved an explanation. I did, however, state that I felt that 4.3.0-1 was by far the superior base to work from in sid, for a number of reasons (not least that propagation to sarge would put the XSF in the position of having to maintain two codebases, not three). > Organizationally, we have more experience with single-maintainer > packages, and I think we have to evolve a bit with respect to team > maintenance a bit more. Fundamentally, I think team-maintenance of > packages has to be grounded on mutual trust among the members of the > team. I personally feel that my trust was betrayed in this situation. > If you think I should not feel this way, please explain why. I think another issue Branden was possibly trying to raise - that we was raised privately - is the team-maintainership model where you have a leader/follower(s), and whether that needs to be formalised, if/when the follower(s) can disobey the leader, et al. XSF was very much leader/follower, as you can see here, as opposed to models of other teams, which are very much equal/meritorious. -d -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgp9NF1tUM89K.pgp
Description: PGP signature
