>>>>> "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <o...@debian.org> writes:
Didier> That code is now in Debian (experimental), so yes, I do Didier> expect you to act in good faith and report bugs you see. You Didier> are obviously quite versed in how 'global' works, and that's Didier> undoubtedly valuable to produce the best possible 'global' Didier> package. Ron, I would prefer that Didier use a different tone. However, it's my opinion as someone who will be voting on this that Didier is essentially right that your view of this situation and of the responsibilities of a Debian maintainer are inconsistent with the project as a whole. You have continued to try and frame the discussion in the terms you would prefer. I have considered those terms, and I do not find framing the discussion in those terms compelling. In the language similar to the IETF, used only because we're both familiar with it, the technical issues surrounding global-6 and the question of evidence regarding htags have been considered. My judgment of the discussion is that the rough consensus here is that those issues are not significant compared to failing to upgrade global in six years. That is, we in this discussion have reach an informed opinion that those issues are not significant enough to block. It is my opinion you are in the rough. I think the question before the TC is (and is properly) how should global-6 be maintained and whether you are the person to do that. You have tried to frame it arguing that the version number doesn't matter. I absolutely agree. However, the time at which Debian has last synced with upstream does matter. Six years is a long time. Moreover, I believe that the standard you've used to evaluate whether failing to sync for six years was acceptable is inconsistent with best practices of the project. --Sam