General arguments about how the TC should conduct its business do not
belong on this bug.
I'd appreciate it if replies to this message are directed to a different
place than this bug.
We've established that the TC is operating consistently both with its
historical process and with currently
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:48 PM Sandro Tosi wrote:
>
> the ability to talk privately with the committee is something CTTE has
> allowed for a long time
Debian has many great traditions, but the Magna Carta is much older. I
found a great article about it ([1], p. 5):
"the simple human need
Sandro Tosi dijo [Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 08:47:22PM -0500]:
> the ability to talk privately with the committee is something CTTE has
> allowed for a long time; it's a two-sided coin: it can prevent heated
> exchanges, but it can also leave a sour taste in the petitioner's
> mouth.
>
> While i would
> Here, the situation here is more complicated. There was a private
> communication with the committee, but such side conversations are
> unfair: How can Matthew ever feel that justice was served? I would
> personally not feel closure unless I saw all such communications and
> had an opportunity
Hi,
Sorry to comment so late. A meeting about this bug may already be in progress.
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 4:15 AM Matthew Vernon wrote:
>
> The maintainer won't talk to me, nor will they engage with me (or anyone
> else) on this thread, though they will it seems talk to the TC in private.
In
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
>> I have not come to the TC to ask them to overrule the maintainer
>> frivolously nor before exploring as many other options as I
>> could.
Russ> I understand (oh, boy, do I ever) how strained relationships
Russ> are after the
On 17/01/2021 10:29, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
Possibly getting off topic here, but I happened to read a bit of this
discussion and while seeing your comment I thought it might be a good
time to remind you about #934463.
I agree it's off-topic here, so I've sent a message to that bug
Hello Matthew Vernon,
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 09:07:03PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> [...], and while I hope your ruling will not result in a bonfire of
> perfectly good init scripts, I hope that maintainers who decide to
> ditch them will let us know so we can add them there
[...]
Possibly
Matthew Vernon writes:
> The maintainer won't talk to me, nor will they engage with me (or anyone
> else) on this thread, though they will it seems talk to the TC in
> private.
> I think, though, that it is common ground between submitter and
> maintainer that the Depends is necessary for
On 16/01/2021 01:39, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Matthew Vernon dijo [Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 09:07:03PM +]:
Please overrule the maintainer in #923387 so that it is can be used on
systems with elogind; it has been tested and shown to work thus as well as
being supported by upstream[1].
As it was
Matthew Vernon dijo [Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 09:07:03PM +]:
> > If you intend the scope of this bug to involve overruling maintainers'
> > decisions in packages other than NM, what other packages/bugs did you
> > have in mind? Is it just udisks2/#923387, or are there more?
>
> I understand (but
Hello,
On Tue 12 Jan 2021 at 01:53PM +02, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Maybe talk to debian-policy to come up with some wording to be added to
> either the developer's reference or policy that discourages dropping
> init scripts, but encourages talking to the maintainers of
> orphan-sysvinit-scripts
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 09:07:03PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> [0] to that end, orphan-sysvinit-scripts is in NEW,
Glad you're taking that route. I had been thinking of other things to
suggest that would make your life easier while allowing maintainers to
drop init scripts if they so desire,
Hi,
On 10/01/2021 20:03, Simon McVittie wrote:
If you intend the scope of this bug to involve overruling maintainers'
decisions in packages other than NM, what other packages/bugs did you
have in mind? Is it just udisks2/#923387, or are there more?
I understand (but I don't think it has been
Simon,
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 08:03:18PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I wouldn't want to give a ruling that would be interpreted as precedent to
> (effectively) overrule multiple maintainer decisions (whether they're
> decisions by a single maintainer in multiple packages, or multiple
>
On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 at 18:36:23 +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> While [lowering NM's dependency on libpam-systemd from Depends to
> Recommends] does address the co-installability of network-manager with
> elogind, I would like you to still say something officially about the issue,
> please, since
16 matches
Mail list logo
