>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes:
Russ> Unfortunately, with this current set of bugs, it seems
Russ> unlikely that we're going to manage to make everyone happy in
Russ> the short term, which means there's going to be a tense period
Russ> where some folks feel strongly that we're doing this wrong.
Russ> But more discussion, unless it's about truly new approaches,
Russ> often makes that kind of situation worse rather than better.
Russ> We may have to just uncomfortably sit with the disagreement
Russ> for a while and incrementally work our way out of it.I agree with all of what Russ says especialliy the above. I think it would help the current situation if the TC would clarify the state of the bugs if they choose not to take up this issue at this time: * Who is expected to drive further discussion: the maintainer or the bug submitter * What is the state until that further discussion happens? My understanding of our processes is that: 1) If the bug submitter disagrees with the maintainer they need to drive discussion. If the TC isn't ready they could drive that discussion debian-devel or some other forum. 2) Unless the TC or RT explicitly acts, the maintainer's severity (wishlist in this case) stands. I really think that if the TC chooses to close this bug, either confirming I'm right on those issues or explaining where I've got it wrong will help a lot. If we're going to be sitting with a bit of discomfort while our processes and our discussions work themselves out, let us at least not have more disagreement on what those processes are than we need. --Sam
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
