Sam Hartman: >>>>>> "Niels" == Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net> writes: > > Niels> If the project consensus of this discussion is aligned with > Niels> the belief that we should block decentralized volunteer work > Niels> on the transition, I will respect the decision. > > I was really frustrated reading that, and I hope that my reading is more > loaded than you meant.
Hi Sam, I am sorry that my email caused you frustration. That part was loaded with my own frustration over the situation and how we - as a project - are handling the transition, which I failed to weed out in my self-review of my outgoing email. Since I do not know to what extend you took it personally, I want you know that none of that frustration was aimed at you as an individual. Once again, if you in any way felt that, then I apologies for that part. > If what you're saying is that you'll respect it if the project consensus > is that individual package maintainers should not move paths around at > this time, then I think that's the key question. > That is what I wanted to say. > I'll point out that we get a lot of value even if we don't move paths > around in packages. > In particular, we get a uniform environment where we can depend on a > single directory layout. > That removes classes of bugs even if we don't get to update canonical > paths. > I believe we both agree on those statements being true (like many of the previous ones). Where we seem to disagree is what should have priority over other things. I sense that the timeliness of completion is of less importance to you compared to other values and I respect that. However, I will be considerably more demotivated by what I feel is a never-ending transition than I am motivated by all of the points you listed above. Which makes it a net-loss for me in years to come even if it is a net-win for many others if the transition is not resolved in a timely fashion. > > > What I originally heard in your statement was a consensus that volunteers > are not needed, > and I don't think anyone support that. > My frustration had a different direction than the one what you seemed to have understood it as, which is why I will not answer your extended follow up to that part in detail - nor do I intend to expand on my original words because I doubt it will make any of us happy. Once again, my sincerest apologies for frustration. Finally, I will retract myself from this debate for the time being. I do not feel I have anything additional of constructive value to add to it nor have enough spoons to invest to become a constructive participant. I will await the evaluation of the consensus. I kindly ask that you CC that to debhel...@packges.debian.org (or, at your choosing, report it as a bug if it involves reverting the change) as I am not sure I will keep track of this thread any more. ~Niels