Le 21/12/2019 à 23:48, Christos Zoulas a écrit :
In article <15520611-7273-9567-33a4-ff2490b2e...@m00nbsd.net>,
Maxime Villard  <m...@m00nbsd.net> wrote:
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.

He does represent the community since he represents core. If you
are unhappy with core@ talk to board@. If you are unhappy with
core@ and board@, get the community to vote for you in the next
elections, or get signatures to impeach them. They are the elected
leadership of the project.

It appears you didn't read correctly the line of mine you just quoted.

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?

Core has been very clear. They've asked you to revert your commits, not
other commits. If they had been unhappy with other commits they would
have asked the committers of the other commits to revert them.

"If". Except that I haven't received any formal email from core. Why can't
core just send a simple official email to say whether yes, or no, they are
fine with me reverting secteam's change, in addition to mine?

I have accepted core's ruling, but have since pointed out additional
serious deficiencies with how filemon was dealt with, hence the concern on
how to proceed. Core, however, has been unwilling to provide an answer and
to work with the community.

It's been two days of this, and I fail to see where the difficulty is.

You, Martin Christos and Taylor, are trying to change subject, find
excuses, and are sending me irrelevant responses vaguely insinuating that
I should revert my change only without addressing the additional concerns
expressed repeatedly. I fail to see whether I should take these as official
core answers.

If they are, please clearly say so.


Reply via email to