Ian, I consider myself an uninvolved party in this matter; I don't really want network-manager installed on my systems, but I'm not particularly keyed up about it. I'm not on the TC. I have been following the issue enough to have an opinion. I'm reasonably good at process issues, and think I understand the process issues involved here.
I'm disappointed to immediately see this discussion turn to assumptions of malice and reprimands. Would you be willing to consider how the TC as an organization and you in particular might learn from this incident and be more effective in the future. When I find something like this happens to me, I try and put myself in the head of the other person and ask what they might be doing. When I do that I hear I find a couple of possibilities. One is that the gnome-meta maintainer is trying to meet the letter of your intent while trying to work around it. Would you be willing to set that aside for a moment and think about other possibilities. Another possibility is that the gnome-meta folks have been confused and frustrated by this whole discussion. They don't see what the big deal about n-m is and they want to provide a good experience for the users. They received a decision they don't really like from the TC with some complex rationale and so they tried to follow through that rationale and balance their goals against the rationale the TC stated as best they could. In point 3 of your resolution, one of the points you make is that users don't have an alternative because only the most minimal gnome package (gnome-session) can be installed without pulling in n-m. I think a reasonable person could read that section of the resolution and conclude that if n-m were pushed into more inclusive meta-packages, then the argument might be different. Now, I'll admit that there was probably some searching going on for how to fit some goals into what the TC proposed. I'll admit that there might have been some ask for forgiveness not permission going on. But all those things are normal with frustration. Would you be willing to consider 1) focusing on accomplishing the specific immediate goal you want--perhaps points 1-6 in your proposed resolution. And then later having a serious discussion about how you and the TC can write resolutions that are more likely to achieve the long-term goals of the TC while avoiding frustration. I would be happy to contribute some thoughts there if desired. Thanks for considering my requests, and thanks for continuing to spend the time to follow this issue. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/tsla9wevzkt....@mit.edu