Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

Pirate Praveen writes ("Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED"): > On വ്യാഴം 01 മാർച്ച് 2018 05:45 വൈകു, Ian Jackson wrote: > > For the avoidance of doubt, I don't have a problem with the specific > > decision of ftpmaster here. > &g

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On വ്യാഴം 01 മാർച്ച് 2018 05:45 വൈകു, Ian Jackson wrote: > For the avoidance of doubt, I don't have a problem with the specific > decision of ftpmaster here. Coming back to this specific rejection (I have already started a discussion on policy question in d-policy), do you agree node-backbone

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On Friday, March 02, 2018 09:44:04 PM Steve Robbins wrote: > On Thursday, March 1, 2018 6:15:08 AM CST Ian Jackson wrote: > > But when a submitter disagrees with a REJECT, and asks for a review, > > IMO submitter is entitled to a longer explanation, and there should > > explicitly be an

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On Thursday, March 1, 2018 6:15:08 AM CST Ian Jackson wrote: > But when a submitter disagrees with a REJECT, and asks for a review, > IMO submitter is entitled to a longer explanation, and there should > explicitly be an opportunity for other ftpmasters to agree or dissent. That would be nice.

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On വെള്ളി 02 മാർച്ച് 2018 04:38 വൈകു, Ian Jackson wrote: > This is the first I'd heard of this being a policy question. How > about you discuss the team policy and the reasons behind it on > d-policy CC the javascript list. If you wish to retain the policy, > but ftpmaster disagree with it, you

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On വെള്ളി 02 മാർച്ച് 2018 02:00 വൈകു, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > But if you continously "run into the same wall", then it does not do any > good to assume its that one person hating you and that, if you happen to > get to another team member, they will like you. It's the wrong mindset. This is based

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

Pirate Praveen writes ("Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED"): > So in this specific case, I will add these files to libjs-three. I think > ftp masters don't want to distinguish between browser environment and > node environment, but just ha

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On 14963 March 1977, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> I wonder why you think "a single ftpmaster". We are a team. We closely >> coordinate what we do and how we do it. When one of us rejects, the team >> rejects - it just happens to be a random one of us doing it. Others do >> not need to get involved

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On വ്യാഴം 01 മാർച്ച് 2018 10:47 വൈകു, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > We should not wait for dissent just forever. The issue you mention was > rejected by ftp-masters, then brought to the TC, then dismissed by the > TC as not-our-role-to-overrule-delegates, and some more days > passed. Do you really think

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

Pirate Praveen dijo [Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 03:15:42PM +0530]: > >> 1. If a single ftp master is in disagreement, there should be a team > >> decision (in previous cases of disagreement also, other team members did > >> not get involved). > > > > I'm lost already, sorry. As I understand the case of

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

Pirate Praveen writes ("Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED"): > On വ്യാഴം 01 മാർച്ച് 2018 03:48 വൈകു, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > I wonder why you think "a single ftpmaster". We are a team. We closely > > coordinate what we

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On വ്യാഴം 01 മാർച്ച് 2018 03:47 വൈകു, Vincent Bernat wrote: > In this specific case, can't you move the symlinks to nodejs-three > package instead? > That is what I did. See https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-javascript/three.js.git/commit/?id=44f5b5e967de805b97f38e69903c88f9a3238cfc

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On വ്യാഴം 01 മാർച്ച് 2018 03:48 വൈകു, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 14963 March 1977, Pirate Praveen wrote: > >> 1. If a single ftp master is in disagreement, there should be a team >> decision (in previous cases of disagreement also, other team members did >> not get involved). > > I wonder why you

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On 14963 March 1977, Pirate Praveen wrote: > 1. If a single ftp master is in disagreement, there should be a team > decision (in previous cases of disagreement also, other team members did > not get involved). I wonder why you think "a single ftpmaster". We are a team. We closely coordinate what

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

❦ 1 mars 2018 11:59 +0530, Pirate Praveen  : >> Does other ftp masters agree with this assessment of considering the >> size of the package as the only criteria to accept or reject a package? >> I don't agree with forcing other contributors to do extra, non standard,

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On വ്യാഴം 01 മാർച്ച് 2018 03:24 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote: > Apologies, but this reads like another non-sequitur to me. Why would deciding > on a number of days before one can assume _no_ dissent make any difference at > all to the case of three.js given that you are claiming there _is_ dissent? I

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

Pirate Praveen wrote: > > I'm lost already, sorry. As I understand the case of three.js's recent > > rejection, no other ftp-master said anything and thus there cannot be > > any dissention. > > I think it would be better if that is made explicit else how many days > should someone wait to see

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On വ്യാഴം 01 മാർച്ച് 2018 02:28 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote: > Pirate, > >> 1. If a single ftp master is in disagreement, there should be a team >> decision (in previous cases of disagreement also, other team members did >> not get involved). > > I'm lost already, sorry. As I understand the case of

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

Le jeudi, 1 mars 2018, 07.29:15 h CET Pirate Praveen a écrit : > 2. CTTE should be able to overrule a delegate when there is a conflict > just like conflict between two debian developers. I don't think that's a power the Technical Committee (as a body, or as the current collection of its

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

Pirate, > 1. If a single ftp master is in disagreement, there should be a team > decision (in previous cases of disagreement also, other team members did > not get involved). I'm lost already, sorry. As I understand the case of three.js's recent rejection, no other ftp-master said anything and

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On Thu, 2018-03-01 at 11:59 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > It seems ftp masters are literally the masters with only a GR powerful > enough to over turn their decisions. See > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=881339#55 This seems correct, from my reading of the Debian

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

[adding -devel] On ഞായര്‍ 25 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2018 03:01 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote: > Does other ftp masters agree with this assessment of considering the > size of the package as the only criteria to accept or reject a package? > I don't agree with forcing other contributors to do extra, non standard,