In my last mail I referred several times to #688772 when I meant #640874. Sorry for the confusion. Here is a fixed copy:
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"): > Raphael Hertzog writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"): > > On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > Having taken hold of the matter and overruled the maintainer, we have > > > a responsibility to see through the consequences, and to avoid > > > backsliding by the maintainer. > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/640874 > > > > $ apt-get source leave > > [...] > > $ head -n 1 leave-1.12/debian/rules > > #!/bin/sh -e > > The Constitution is quite clear that the maintainer is not required to > do the work. So until there is a patch available to leave available > implement the TC-mandated policy requirement this bug will remain > unfixed. > > Note also that in this case we didn't specifically override the leave > maintainer's decision not to comply with policy. > > Even if we had, in general I would expect a fair proportion of > overrulings to require NMUs. It would be too much to expect > maintainers to always have the fortitude to implement a decision they > didn't agree with. Naturally the complainants should give a > maintainer the time and space to make the upload themselves, but after > a reasonable interval I think an upload to a DELAYED queue is entirely > appropriate. > > I don't think it is necessarily the TC members' job to make that NMU, > but I guess it could help in some situations from a social point of > view to have the upload come from one of the TC. And I think it would > be too much to ask TC members to (for example) implement the required > rewrite of the leave rules file. > > However, the management of the bug report(s) is not ideal. As the bug > was reassigned to TC and then closed when the TC made its decision, > there is not currently a bug open against leave. Please feel free to > clone #640874 into a new bug and reopen it and assign it to leave. > > > It seems pretty clear that the TC is currently not making sure that his > > decisions get acted upon (and this despite Jakub who pointed out the > > mistake in https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2012/08/msg00001.html). > > I'm sorry that we didn't spot that this needed further action. I read > Jakub's message in support, and didn't follow through to the link, > which I read not as a separate point needing action but rather simply > as evidence he was advancing in support of my proposal. Since no-one > seemed to disagree with the proposal (apart from mailing list problems > now fixed) I didn't go and read the background. > > But there is no reason why anyone else can't help us out with this bug > gardening. If you don't have time or inclination to do the bug > gardening for "leave" please let me know and I will do it. > > Ian. > > PS: I would like to point out that as I myself don't actually agree > with the TC policy decision in #640874, again I am I think excused > from a requirement to do the work to help implement it. I don't think > me insisting on this point is valuable, at least when we're just > talking about bug gardening. My inclination to rewrite the leave > rules file is limited, though. Do you think that's reasonable ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20580.31957.854756.752...@chiark.greenend.org.uk