On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Ben Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Thu Jun 23 17:39:32 -0400 2011: > >> actually, just the opposite is true. I've been petitioning the board >> for an EARLIER vote on the related issues, for over a month >> now. They > > Yes, we've been seeing the same things on board@ as we get on > maintainers@. Things like "good news, I solved the problem with this > so we can keep a human release manager,"[....] > > The vote writeup you did was an attempt at this. I _want_ you to do > this writeup as much as possible as that removes avenues for complaint > later. What I'm not going to allow is for this to be hijacked and > derailed by changing the content of the vote. >
What you really seem be saying here is, "What I'm not going to allow, is for a vote on whether or not to keep a human release manager", even if everything else about the "new process", migration to current, etc. is kept intact. Which is exactly what I've been saying; you are controlling and limiting voting choices. To diffuse other people's accusations about "It's all about Phil trying to keep control": I don't care whether the release manager is me, or someone else. Frankly, I'm rather tired of dealing with it myself. I speak up for it, because I honestly believe that opencsw is better off with *A* release manager, or a release manager group **in addition to** automation, vs pure automation all by itself. Anyways. next email is my proposed amendments _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
