On 6/24/06, Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 12:07:52AM -0500, James Potts wrote:
> There is a problem here for the java folks...Technically, their
> migration-overlay is an overlay, and technically, that overlay is
> currently unofficial.
_Technically_ probably maybe, but please read what already has been
said about it in this thread - there are big differences between those
to projects, such as the sunrise being technically suspended as an
official project and the java project not.
Anyway, all of this (including my reply, sorry) already has been
discussed in this thread before, no need to repeat history. ;-)
Let me be clear on this: From what I understand, the rule as written
prevents unofficial overlays from using certain fields in bugzilla.
It says nothing about the status of the project(s) behind such
overlays. So the argument that this should not apply to the java team
because the project is still official, and sunrise is not, is bogus.
This ruling applies to overlays, not projects.
On 6/24/06, Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Question is, do we care about blindly following a policy that obviously was
targetting at something completely different, or do we care about getting stuff
done?
There's nothing as unproductive as political correctness.
Just my 0.02 SFr,
I hate to put it to you this way, but if you give people an inch,
they'll take a mile. Yes, political correctnes is unproductive. This
is why decisions like the one made here need to be thought out better
before being made. But once the decision is made, it should be
applied equally, or not at all.
As for the decision that led to this mess, I'd like to see it on the
agenda for the next Council meeting. I really don't agree with it (or
rather the way it was worded), and I can see others don't either.
Unfortunately, I don't know if I have the authority to request this,
since I'm not a dev.
--Arek
--
[email protected] mailing list
