On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:35 PM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >...
> This sort of language is not helpful. Nor do I think it is accurate. Can > you please take more care with your words. > I feel it is accurate. And it is not directed at anybody. Only at this process. It is descriptive, and my carefully chosen word that I feel describes what is happening. You disagree. That will occur in any free discussion. Only groupthink discussion sees no disagreement. > Just let Tuweni make a release, already. Stuff like this will get fixed > eventually. > > No-one is stopping them from making a release. Sure looks like it from here. I see a lot of "oh no. a bad file". What is the takeaway from that? "The IPMC thinks we should not release." Let me provide an exact quote: "this is currently not allowed." Read that line again. Not. Allowed. How about "make the release, and fix that next time" ? Look at the framing, and at how any normal reader is going to see it. It is (ahem) insanity to believe that it doesn't look like harshing on Tuweni for a file in their release. And then escalating with "oh geez. we need Infra to weigh in on this problem" (without really doing so, until yesterday, thus stalling the process) As long as the IPMC discusses podling releases, they are going to be *interfering*. And that is what I'm seeing with Tuweni, for a minor issue which has no material effect on people trying their product. Just ungate the release, and fix it next time. Do not attempt to rewrite history. "this is currently not allowed" was the very first response. That damned well looks like the IPMC saying "no, you cannot release that" ... **especially** when that comment comes from the VP Incubator. Fact. -g
