Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#573745: ping"):
> Do you mean that you would get a *private* ack from the current maintainer,
> but no public one?I am assuming that we are likely to get no ack at all. > As commented in my previous mail, I don't believe that a maintenance *team* > can be formed without the consent of all involved, and that a forced team > eventually devolves into either a forced takeover or a failed takeover. (In > this case, since it's with the TC's imprimatur, it would presumably be a > forced takeover.) So I'm only willing to consider forming a team without > the explicit consent of the current maintainer under circumstances where I > think a forced takeover is also an acceptable outcome. What I see in this case is this: The current maintainer has completely failed to communicate with us at all about the challenge and criticisms which have been brought before us. Under these circumstances I think our *only* reasonable decision is a forced takeover as soon as a plausible set of replacement maintainers are available. One of the most effective approaches that the TC has had in resolving disputes is to act as a kind of referee for the conversation between two sides. When both sides can be persauded to be reasonable this usually results in an amicable solution; when it doesn't, it becomes obvious who is being unreasonable. The current maintainer is making that impossible. Indeed the current maintainer is making our task impossible. Whether that is a deliberate strategy to stall us indefinitely, or simply conflict-avoidant, is immaterial. Or to put it another way, your current approach means that we are blocked by the maintainer and have been for at least twelve months. This blocking is likely to continue indefinitely. We need to unblock this problem, which means we need to take waiting for or relying on responses from the current maintainer out of the equation. As Luca, one of the original petitioners, wrote: Part of the problem is that Matthias is not communicating anymore on public channels, and uses other people as a proxy. ... Debian cannot live in a situation where the maintainer of a core package doesn't even talk to people who directly depend on his work. > But as long as we have the current maintainer's agreement (in whatever > form), this concern is null. And if the problem is that the current > maintainer can DoS the process by not responding, I'm ok with giving an > ultimatum that we would go forward with a change unless Matthias responds in > a certain (reasonable) timeframe, provided that he still has the option to > say "no". What will you say if we get together some proposed new team, and suggest it, and all we get from the current maintainer is the single word "no" ? Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
