On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 12:00:45 -0700 Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> 
> Hello,
> On Wed 18 Nov 2020 at 11:18PM -08, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > I'd also like to address one other issue here. It would be easy to
> > hypothesize, at this point, that some additional communication (or more
> > verbose communication) from the maintainer might have helped here.
> > However, I would express doubt that any more verbose version of "no"
> > (e.g. a long-form explanation about undesired additional maintenance
> > burden) would have led to any less escalation. I think the situation
> > would still have ended up here, no matter how much time or energy was
> > expended in writing responses.
> >
> > That seems particularly likely given the adversarial NMU directly
> > attempting to override an active package maintainer's decision, which
> > escalated the situation further. (Such adversarial NMUs have occurred in
> > regard to alternative init support in the past, as well.) And I don't
> > think anyone can reasonably suggest that they thought the change was
> > made unintentionally (given that it was explicitly mentioned in the
> > changelog), which makes the NMU a rather hostile escalation.
> >
> > I would ask anyone on the TC who feels that more verbose answers were
> > desirable whether they think a more verbose answer would have had any
> > effect on the outcome or subsequent escalations.
> Assuming for a moment that the TC does not decline to rule, it is going
> to be very hard for us to make a good decision if we lack more detailed
> input from the package maintainer.

I'm not suggesting otherwise; I'm only asking the TC to refrain from
suggesting that further communication alone, prior to this point, would
have averted this situation. The original request makes such
implications, so they may potentially have formed part of what the TC
ruled on. (The TC does sometimes issue similar suggestions as part of
its rulings, in what I think is generally a *good* practice of
encouraging people to work things out and giving them guidance on how to
do so.)

> We can speculate as to whether the dispute would have proceeded better
> or worse with more verbose messages from Michael before now, but it
> would be beside the point.

Thank you; that fully addresses this particular point.

Reply via email to