+++ Steve Langasek [2015-09-09 12:17 -0700]: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 05:30:03PM +0100, Wookey wrote: > > > So what I learned from this is that, as currently operating, the > > committee is incapable of making quick 'overrule unreasonableness' > > decisions. My overriding impression was that those involved simply did > > not have the time available that would be be needed to enable that. > > No, what you see here is that the TC did not agree with you that the > maintainer's action was unambiguously unreasonable under the circumstances.
Well, maybe. Maybe there were discussions to that effect I didn't see. In that case fair enough. The impression given was of a somewhat slow process and members not having time to review the situation, so preferring to punt, and not distinguishing between the immediate issue for jessie and the general issue for stretch onwards. I don't mean to have a go at the CTTE, or go over it all again. I was just trying to explain that the process was nothing like I had imagined it would be, and that this suprised me. Having seen how the meetings operate I do now understand why it is like it is. > If you conclude from this that raising the issue to the TC was not an > effective way to see your grievance addressed under those circumstances, > I won't disagree with you. (not forgetting that I didn't raise it to the TC (Helmut did)). Mind you, I don't know what else he could have done under the circumstances except suck it up. > But you are asserting that the reason for this > is that the TC is unable to act quickly to overrule. This is not the case; > there is historical precedent for quick overrules by the TC where there is > actual agreement that this is appropriate. OK. Fair enough. I do only have one data point :-) > That said, if developers have expectations of the TC that don't match > reality, that seems worth addressing. Well, I've had my expectations addressed. Not sure about everyone else :-) Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/
