Le 21/12/2019 à 00:05, Taylor R Campbell a écrit :
Security-team is not perfect. We're happy to discuss a better way to
disable filemon provisionally, and/or how to better address the
existing users if we are to delete it -- after you do as core asked
you to do to resolve the interim dispute by restoring the tree.
This is a social process. We can work together to make it better for
everyone, but you have to be willing to work with the community,
including accepting rulings by core to resolve disputes.
I'm afraid you, Taylor, don't have a monopoly on representing the community.
It just so happens that I, too, as a regular member and also as a main
kernel developer, represent the community; and I don't think the community
is really happy with how secteam disabled filemon without discussion. The
community is likely even less happy with how it was disabled, considering
that a quick discussion has already highlighted two apparent better ways
to disable it.
It appears that core and secteam failed to work properly with the
To resolve this dispute, I have proposed to revert both my removal, and
secteam's broken disabling. This gives a clear basis to start a discussion
on what to do with filemon exactly.
Is core fine with that? Or are there double standards at play here?