Bug#741573: Please decide on a reversion of commit 3785878 in the Policy's Git repository.

2014-05-09 Thread Jonathan Nieder 
Hi Charles,

Charles Plessy wrote:

In particular, in the absence of
 Bill's contribution to the resolution of our conflict, I am asking the TC to
 not discuss the menu systems and focus instead on correcting Bill's
 misbehaviour.

 What is at a stake here is not the Debian Menu system, it is the fact that in
 Debian, it takes 5 minutes for one person to block one year of effort and
 patience from multiple other persons.

Please take a step back, breathe, and remember that people on the policy
team probably have good intentions when doing their work.

For what it's worth, I think Bill made the right choice in reverting the
change and trying to find a variant that had consensus.  I don't think
he acted improperly.

Meanwhile I think you were acting in good faith in applying the change
in the first place.  Sometimes the presence or lack of consensus can
be hard to pin down.  But I think the menu system patch needed work,
people had said as much, and the work in setting policy in that area
wasn't done yet.

Thanks,
Jonathan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2014051837.gn9...@google.com

Bug#741573: Please decide on a reversion of commit 3785878 in the Policy's Git repository.

2014-05-09 Thread Nikolaus Rath 
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
 Charles Plessy wrote:

In particular, in the absence of
 Bill's contribution to the resolution of our conflict, I am asking the TC to
 not discuss the menu systems and focus instead on correcting Bill's
 misbehaviour.

 What is at a stake here is not the Debian Menu system, it is the fact that in
 Debian, it takes 5 minutes for one person to block one year of effort and
 patience from multiple other persons.

 Please take a step back, breathe, and remember that people on the policy
 team probably have good intentions when doing their work.

I'm pretty sure Charles knows this very well, but good intentions alone
do not justify all (in-)actions done with them. 

 For what it's worth, I think Bill made the right choice in reverting the
 change and trying to find a variant that had consensus.  I don't think
 he acted improperly.

I don't think it's worth much in the context of this bug, but since you
started it, and since I don't want Charles to become even more
frustrated because of additional, vocal after-the-fact opposition like
yours: looking through the discussion I think Bill is blocking other
people's work, and Charles is completely right in his anger. I hope the
ctte will find time for this soon.


Best,
Nikolaus

-- 
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

 »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/874n0yl0zh@kosh.rath.org