Thomas Goirand writes:
> The fact that I wrote this mail while being
> jet-laged, woken up in the middle of the night by it, is probably linked
> to writing to the wrong address ...
This is probably the most useful thing we can all take from this
discussion... any time you are emotionally wound-
On 15/04/13 at 22:09 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 02:50:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > the TC is probably a much more suitable body to rule on this
>
> I'd like to point out that if the DPL delegated that decision to
> ftp-master, and ftp-master made a decission, the
It's probably also worth noting that large numbers of tiny packages have
been a point of significant controversy in terms of archive management and
the archive acceptance policy for many years. I've seen several packages
rejected before, at least initially, for being split into too many tiny
packa
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 02:50:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> the TC is probably a much more suitable body to rule on this
I'd like to point out that if the DPL delegated that decision to
ftp-master, and ftp-master made a decission, the DPL can't
override that.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
On 13182 March 1977, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Note that the upstream changelog issue was quickly solved (and I agreed
> with the FTP masters view on it), though remains the "problem" of having
> too many binaries, according to the FTP masters.
Ay. I go into the reasons for that somewhere down belo
On 04/15/2013 11:07 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> If you and your collaborators think the conversation with ftpmaster is
> essentially over, and want to escalate to the TC
I hope it's not, and that the TC thing can be avoided.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
On Mon Apr 15 2013 05:13:40 AM PDT, Adam D. Barratt
wrote:
> On 15.04.2013 12:49, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > The following DDs have already agreed with my view on the mater:
> [...]
> > - Mehdi Abaakouk
>
> I may be missing something here, but Mehdi doesn't appear to be a DD
> according to db.d
Hi,
I have no words to express how stupid I feel right now.
The effect of my mail is the exact opposite of what I wanted to achieve.
What I wanted to do was reaching the tech committee *members* only (and
not the public list) and Lucas, then ask how I could manage the
emotional situation. Which
Thomas Goirand writes ("Re: FTP masters willingly blocking OpenStack nova
2013.1 just right before the OpenStack summit"):
> I did ask Ansgar on IRC, but got no answer. Though not recently, after
> others have voiced their support.
I don't think "others ... [voicing] their support" is really the
On 04/15/2013 08:49 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> As a consequence, I am questioning the motivation behind all this, and
>
> This is the part where you cross the line that you should not have
> crossed.
Yeah, publicly, I shouldn't have. Yet, I was trying to ask friends for
help, because I could f
On 04/15/2013 08:50 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> But in that case, couldn't you just use an unofficial repo in the
> meantime, or point to a VCS?
This has already been done.
>> To all of you: what advice can you give to escalate this issue in the
>> best way possible?
>
> Avoiding ad hominem atta
On 04/15/2013 08:36 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I would prefer it
> if you stopped throwing around public accusations of ill will unless
Hi,
This is a *mistake* which I just did. I was intending to send a mail to
the ctte memebers, and not to the list. I feel truly sorry for that.
I was in fact, tr
Hi,
On 15/04/13 at 19:49 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Dear ctte, dear (new) DPL,
First, note that my term starts on the 17th.
> I decided to leave up to before the OpenStack summit to the FTP masters,
> so that they could approve Nova. With no reply from them, which made me
> miss my dead line
Hi Thomas,
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> So, before I summit a bug to the ctte and escalate this issue, I would
> like some advices from both the new DPL and the ctte.
I'm part of neither and I can understand your frustration but your mail
has been written too quickly while the emo
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 07:49:10PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> As a consequence, I am questioning the motivation behind all this, and
> asking myself if we aren't seeing here (yet) another instance of
> miss-behavior from Ganneff, who probably disliked the fact that I
> defended my friend when h
Thomas Goirand writes ("FTP masters willingly blocking OpenStack nova 2013.1
just right before the OpenStack summit"):
> I would like first the new DPL to express his view: is this the role of
> the FTP masters to overrule the technical opinion of a DD? Do they have
> the rights to block a package
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 07:49:10PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>As a consequence, I am questioning the motivation behind all this, and
>asking myself if we aren't seeing here (yet) another instance of
>miss-behavior from Ganneff, who probably disliked the fact that I
>defended my friend when he
On 15.04.2013 12:49, Thomas Goirand wrote:
The following DDs have already agreed with my view on the mater:
[...]
- Mehdi Abaakouk
I may be missing something here, but Mehdi doesn't appear to be a DD
according to db.d.o.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@list
On 15.04.2013 12:49, Thomas Goirand wrote:
I would
also like to point that the tone from Ganneff isn't acceptable. From
someone who is both DSA, FTP Master and DAM
I'm sure both DSA and Joerg will be surprised to discover you've
appointed him to the team...
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
Dear ctte, dear (new) DPL,
After I had almost all of my packages approved just right before the
Openstack summit which starts in few hours now, the FTP masters decided
that it was wise to block my Nova package just 5 days before the summit,
for a reason which IMO isn't good enough. Please read thi
20 matches
Mail list logo
