On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 05:09:56PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Nov 06 2016, Ron <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:20:30AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > >> Ron <[email protected]> writes: > >> > > >> > I can try to clarify that if there's a question in your mind that > >> > you don't think I touched on there. > >> > >> The question that remains is what you actually intend to do. > > > > Nod. So far here, I've mostly tried to stick to just outlining the > > facts we have to deal with, and the options I think we have and the > > pros and cons of them - because I don't have a preconceived answer > > to that which I'm welded to, and I was more interesting in listening > > to well considered comments that people might have had than turning > > this into a mindless tug of war between two inflexible positions. > > It's too bad that you only started doing this after this was escalated > to the CTTE. Had you responded at such length and with so little delay > to the earlier bug reports, the situation would be very different. But > now, your sudden communicativeness just has the opposite effect. > > In my opinion, the fact that you had no time for this issue for multiple > years, but are now able to send a large number of long emails about it > to the ctte does not speak in your favor.
I'm sorry, remind me again about where and what you have ever tried to offer that would be of value to resolving this which I didn't respond to? Because I've had countless detailed discussions with people who have, and I don't recall you ever being part of any of that. Just repeating myself over and over to people who clearly weren't interested in helping with what was needed to solve the Hard parts of this, proved itself time and again to be an insane hope. I'm sorry for you if what you spent a few minutes skimming over didn't show that to you before you decided to pick up a stone and throw it. I've always given time to anyone who took the time to understand and showed an interest and willingness to try something new to improve this. And it's clear that the person who gave the most recent (and best) feedback to the original bug found it easy enough to clearly understand the situation from what was already written there: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=574947#190 Which part of that did you not understand? If you want to understand reality, then you ought to understand that it's drive-by mud slinging like yours which have led to a lot of capable developers simply unsubscribing from most or all of Debian's mailing lists to avoid getting mired in them. And it's aggressive prejudice like Ian's, and the people who thought they could (ab)use it to get their way in an argument which led to a lot of people losing trust in the TC to actually do Good Things. Vincent brought this here after contributing nothing more constructive or indicative of understanding than stamping his feet and insisting "I want a new upstream and I want it now. And I want someone else to do the work". I've taken the time to repeat this all again now, because regardless of how it got here, I actually have some faith in the new face of the TC as a forum for building 'project wide' consensus around hard problems. Having read all of that, Phil has now asked me to propose a concrete alternative to what he suggested, which I did. And I think the important difference is that we have the opportunity to build a consensus here which includes a good proportion of impartial and non-partisan voices who weighed up all the options like I've been doing. People who will have my back to say this was well thought through, if and/or when other people start making contentless complaints like you are about whatever the new state ends up being, and taking sides, and throwing more stones. People whose time is potentially valuable and shouldn't be wasted. I'm looking at this as a test of how the TC might be able to function like that as much as anything else, and I think that's worth a bit of the time that I have to give to Debian. So if this is the best analysis you are capable of sharing based on all of what has been written about this - then indeed you will have to just forgive me and learn if I henceforth don't continue to respond to your comments when they add nothing to the solution. The way you make time to engage in things that might really make a difference is to not waste it on things that obviously won't. I can't make you want to learn and think. But I hope that one day you'll understand that you're bringing nothing to the discussion but distracting noise if you don't. In the meantime, can we first please stay focussed on solutions to the _problem_ instead of just childishly attacking the man stuck on the pointy end of it. This is already hard enough without also having to set the record straight about ignorant slurs on what I have or haven't done and uninformed speculation about why ... that sort of nonsense isn't helping anyone get this resolved faster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_principle Ron
