I've seen that it quite often happens that a package or a set of packages is being worked for quite a long time with no review from the release manager. If there is a number of maintainers involved, they usually discuss, and achieve consensus about each issue. When it's all done, packages are submitted for release, and - like a lightning out of a clear sky - the release manager says "no", and nobody understands why. It's a rare case that the raised objections are clear problems with a package, such as a missing dependency. They are usually matters subject to opinion, aesthetic or otherwise. Consensus driven communities work these things out, and once consensus is achieved, they don't come back to the same discussion right away. If there's a person who picks up a topic again and tries to undermine the consensus without a good reason, the person is likely viewed as poisonous.
As it happens, our workflow leads to exactly this. Release manager doesn't look at packages until they are submitted, and they are submitted after a consensus between maintainers is reached. If the release manager objects, he's up against an already established consensus. It's not that the objections raised are unreasonable - they might be well reasonable. The problem is that they are raised at a wrong time. Have other people noticed this? Do you think it could at least partly explain the excessive amount of friction in our community? _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
