Marc Dequènes (duck) writes ("Re: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references"):
> *Unilaterally* taking decisions in a project
I feel I need to set the record straight. This decision was not taken
unilaterally.
The process was:
* We had a conversation involving you as maintainer; you
decided
Quack,
So be it.
Now as a last word I'd like to express how I deeply disagree with how
this was conducted. Despite Chris' good words I still feel I had to
justify myself and my opinion, which already feels bad, but I had no
reply to my suggestion to extend the Anti-Harassment team's scope
Marc,
> > I would be very interested if you could briefly elaborate on why
> > you believe the AH team is not a credible voice or otherwise are
> > unsuitable / unempowered to make such decisions?
> >
> > (Is this "just" a constitutional question?)
>
> Whoua, I cannot convey how bad it feels
Quack,
On 2018-11-16 18:43, Chris Lamb wrote:
I would be very interested if you could briefly elaborate on why
you believe the AH team is not a credible voice or otherwise are
unsuitable / unempowered to make such decisions?
(Is this "just" a constitutional question?)
Whoua, I cannot convey
Dear Marc,
> I value the opinion of the anti-harassment team but I believe this is
> outside their mission. At the moment we do not have any team in charge
> of validating the non-technical aspects of the packages.
I would be very interested if you could briefly elaborate on why
you believe
Quack,
Just to clarify things on my side.
I made my opinion clear as to the needless boobs reference I believe
harmless. So far I heard no wish to rename from upstream, which would be
the simplest solution.
As for insults, they were removed upstream, unstable was patched (not
all fixes
Hi Ian,
> If you advise that it would be better for me to try a direct contact
> with upstream then I am happy to do so. In which case I would
> appreciate a (private) review from someone of my proposed messages.
Sure thing; if I could help with any of that please get in touch.
> I would be
Please forgive me if I step in to give my two cents.
As others have already observed, if upstream doesn't want to
collaborate, there's always the option of forking. That would be a
more desirable outcome than removal from Debian -- as I understand it,
the program does perform a useful function.
Thanks for your mail and your attention.
Chris Lamb writes ("Re: Bug#907199: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references"):
> Just as one example from your previous message, you appear to reject
> working with upstream constructively on this, despite a solution
> involving th
Dear Ian,
> Chris, what do you think ? I think I have nearly run out of things to
> try that aren't a GR. I'm sure I can get sponsors for a GR, and help
> drafting it.
I sympathise with your viewpoint on the weboob contretemps, but if I may
adopt my attempt at an objective DPL or "Lady
Niels Thykier writes ("Re: Bug#907199: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references"):
> I think the Release Team is the wrong authority for this enquiry.
>
> As I understand it, you feel that weboob (in its current condition) is
> in conflict with Debian's values (e.g. th
Ian Jackson:
> Ian Jackson writes ("weboob, Gratuitous sexual references"):
>> Dear Release Team, would you please decide whether
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=906119
>> is, in your opinion, RC ?
>
> Hi. Are you still thinking about this, please ? How long should I
>
Ian Jackson writes ("weboob, Gratuitous sexual references"):
> Dear Release Team, would you please decide whether
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=906119
> is, in your opinion, RC ?
Hi. Are you still thinking about this, please ? How long should I
wait for a reply ?
Package: release.debian.org
Control: block 906119 by -1
(I sent this as a plain email, after asking on #debian-release what
the best representation in the BTS would be, but I didn't get a useful
reply, so I am resending this as a bug report without any useful
tags. Sorry for any inconvenience.)
14 matches
Mail list logo
