On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 11:40:20 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> My view is
> that the behaviour seen in #921012 and #964139 is an outrage
I don't think this is constructive, and if a package's maintainer doesn't
want to enter into conversations, this doesn't seem like an approach
that will change their mind.
Matthew opened this thread with a message that focused on technical points
and avoided emotive language, and I would like to keep the discussion on
that basis. The technical committee's responsibility is to make decisions
on their technical merits, and I'm sure you don't think that we are or
should be more likely to take your side because you have expressed outrage.
If you feel that the community team or DAM needs to be involved, they're
available to be contacted (perhaps they have been already), but this
pseudo-package is not their issue tracker and this bug is not theirs
to resolve.
Thanks,
smcv
