https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161941
--- Comment #22 from V Stuart Foote <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #21) > ... > > I don't agree with Eyal's naive perception that the project is overly bound > > by "process" > > The perception is of the opposite... this commit was an example of poor > process. > > (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #20) > > New is not an immediate revert. > > In the context of this bug - why? > > > You and others raised good questions and the ticket is in NI state. > > And why isn't _that_ immediate revert? > > The good questions should be discussed before this is committed, not > retroactively. As they had not been discussed beforehand, it is appropriate > to back out, then have the discussion. Sigh, as usual Eyal you've missed the point. I really would prefer not to expend the effort of cleaning up your messes, yet they keep coming... Here there is no imperative that the fonts contributed as part of the Google "DocRepair" project be removed. Community member Collabora either had a direct request for them or it was just a Dev's inkling to implement--end of story. End of "process". As that is the means by which the project is maintained, features are spawned, and dead/obsolete code is pruned. If you more directly want/need something--code it up and submit patches for peer review. Devs, aka Doers, decide. Then if there is a real reason to revert, ESC would provide such guidance--user issues and trustee concerns should not be beat to death in a BZ issue. Yet you do... Likewise, if for TDF concerns, the BoD takes up a sponsorship position of the FOSS Google DocRepair project--granting it could be a means to support hosting our own LibreOffice or Document Liberation font requirements (e.g. a home for OpenSymbol)--that discussion and any guidance would filter down through ESC, or be formally tendered by BoD. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
