Serge, It's looking like to me that you don't understand why Daniel is unhappy about the situation. I'll try hereby to explain, in the hope to restore sanity in communication. Please don't take anything personally, this message doesn't aim at pointing finger at anyone. I really do think there's only miss-communication and lack of understanding, which is fixable if both parties want it.
On 07/26/2014 02:23 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Thomas Goirand (z...@debian.org): >> Then, reading #754910, it looked like Serge was about to work with >> Daniel, but finally, didn't. No sign of this change in #754910, which is >> at least surprising. It's also very surprising to see the package just > > As Daniel said we had an agreement. He was going to push the package. He > failed to do that, causing over a week's delay in straightening out the > non-systemd-upgrade mess. One week delay is, IMO, perfectly reasonable, considering how much we've waited for this package already. And if you thought it was too much and couldn't wait, you could upload your new version, add him in the Uploaders: field, and discuss other eventual pending issues later. But you decided to just upload silently, without telling about what you've done, and Daniel just discover things after the facts. So his reaction isn't surprising: he now has the feeling you're pushing him away after he showed interest in the package. > But instead of dropping in on that thread and > apologizing, he's complaining here. He's rightly complaining that you're not considering at all his work, and just took over a package he worked on since last March. Maybe it'd help if you tried to see things from his point of view. Now we're back to square one, before you accepted to work with him. > I have enough to do that when I can delegate something to someone else I'm > happy and thankful to them. Last week I was hoping that would be the > situation here. Alas. It's still possible to do collaborative work, but you've got to show a bit of consideration for the person you're about to work with. Right now, it doesn't look like it's going through this path ... On 07/26/2014 04:31 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote: > I *am* sorry that some of dba's time was likely wasted, especially > since it's obvious he has a shortage of it, maintaining quite a few > packages. For the same reason I fail to see how having one less > package to maintain could be anything but a relief. Judging Daniel's involvement, dedication and available time just by one week of (non-) activity isn't appropriate. Everyone has busy weeks, and other moments where there's more free time. It is also quite obvious that Daniel cared about gcmanager and that it's not a relief at all (I believe he cares about it because he maintains LXC). > The bug messages on orphan bugs say something along the lines of "not > worth it". If you're purely maintaining those packages to help out, > and you feel it is a strain time-wise, then how could not having to > maintain another package make you feel it's "not worth it". Because gcmanager is part of a package suite. For example, the same way I maintain a bunch of dependencies and side packages for OpenStack, I now feel like I should orphan (or let go with ITA) a few other packages, so that I can maintain better all of OpenStack (or rather: so that someone else can maintain better the packages which I don't have time for anymore). So what Daniel does when orphaning packages makes sense, even though the orphaning messages could be improved. Anyway, I'm not even sure it is up to you to judge this, you only needed to know he cared about gcmanager, and was only asked to work with him. Was this too much to ask for? Would you reconsider? Hoping the above really helps for a better understanding, and that it will lead to more team work (package team maintenance is by the way always better). Please note that I'm available for sponsoring any further upload of gcmanager if Daniel is involved again. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) P.S: I agree with FTP masters's point of view that it's not their role to do arbitration of package ownership, and thanks for letting everyone know what happened. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53d357fa.3030...@debian.org
