Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

[Ron]

On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 12:09:21PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On Nov 07 2016, Ron  wrote:
> 
> > I've taken the time to repeat this all again now, because regardless
> > of how it got here, I actually have some faith in the new face of the
> > TC as a forum for building 'project wide' consensus around hard problems.
> > Having read all of that, Phil has now asked me to propose a concrete
> > alternative to what he suggested, which I did. And I think the important
> > difference is that we have the opportunity to build a consensus here
> > which includes a good proportion of impartial and non-partisan voices who
> > weighed up all the options like I've been doing.
> 
> It seems you're only interested in impartial and non-partisan voices
> when they happen to back your position. I am impartial and non-partisan,
> and formed my opinion by reading the bugs and your emails.

And "your opinion" still hasn't said even a single word to show that you
understand the technical problem here, or to offer any solution to it.
The problem which doesn't just magically go away regardless of who might
implement it.

And now you say that apparently you didn't even read the conversation that
you interjected into enough to notice that Phil and I were having a civil
discussion precisely on the _difference_ we saw in ways that this might be
'solved' ...

All you did was dismiss and (continue to) try to side track that.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=841294#155
(for anyone who missed it before people tried to bury it piling on to
the man again)


> If you indeed welcome opinions from people like me, your statements
> above are a little odd.

I think you missed the bit about "comprehending the problem and building
consensus on solutions" - because if this is all you have to offer then
no, "opinions" from people "like you" are neither helpful nor welcome.
Even if they 100% agree with me.  They are just a toxic symptom of people
still ignoring the hard technical problem.


Which is very different from the suggestions of people, say, "like Phil",
where no matter how much we disagree at the outset, we can still focus
that on looking at the merits of ways to solve the problem as best we
can in the circumstances that we have.  And try to come to some sort of
best consensus on it.

When you understand that distinction, and have something we've all missed
to contribute, _then_ you'll be welcome, whoever you're disagreeing with.

If all you want to do is play "Trump school of debate", then please take
that somewhere else, and leave this thread to focus on the technical
details of _what_ we ought to do.  If we don't solve that, then who does
it is kind of irrelevant, there'll still be a Hard Problem that someone
won't be happy with.


  Ron

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

[Nikolaus Rath]

On Nov 07 2016, Ron  wrote:
>> In my opinion, the fact that you had no time for this issue for multiple
>> years, but are now able to send a large number of long emails about it
>> to the ctte does not speak in your favor.
>
> I'm sorry, remind me again about where and what you have ever tried
> to offer that would be of value to resolving this which I didn't
> respond to?
>
> Because I've had countless detailed discussions with people who have,
> and I don't recall you ever being part of any of that.

[...]

> I've taken the time to repeat this all again now, because regardless
> of how it got here, I actually have some faith in the new face of the
> TC as a forum for building 'project wide' consensus around hard problems.
> Having read all of that, Phil has now asked me to propose a concrete
> alternative to what he suggested, which I did. And I think the important
> difference is that we have the opportunity to build a consensus here
> which includes a good proportion of impartial and non-partisan voices who
> weighed up all the options like I've been doing.

It seems you're only interested in impartial and non-partisan voices
when they happen to back your position. I am impartial and non-partisan,
and formed my opinion by reading the bugs and your emails. If you indeed
welcome opinions from people like me, your statements above are a little
odd.


Best,
-Nikolaus

-- 
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

 »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

[Vincent Bernat]

 ❦  7 novembre 2016 16:45 +1030, Ron  :

> I've always given time to anyone who took the time to understand and
> showed an interest and willingness to try something new to improve
> this. And it's clear that the person who gave the most recent (and
> best) feedback to the original bug found it easy enough to clearly
> understand the situation from what was already written there:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=574947#190

A message that received absolutely no answer (and quite similar to the
other reports: doesn't work with current version, works with the new
upstream version, kthxbye).

> Vincent brought this here after contributing nothing more constructive
> or indicative of understanding than stamping his feet and insisting
> "I want a new upstream and I want it now.  And I want someone else
> to do the work".

"Now" was three years ago. My last message in the above bug report [0]
was also received with a silence on your side. There are 15 people in
the thread asking for a new upstream version. Several of them proposed
patches to package a new version. None of them get an answer from
you. Nobody will help debug an issue and build a patch on an 8 year old
software while there are new versions available.

[0]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=574947#171
-- 
Document your data layouts.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature