Hi, On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Ian Jackson wrote: > But I'm not convinced that this is the right basis to think about it. > It is not a good precedent to set that if a matter is brought to the > TC, the maintainer who loses the debate in the TC will do something > which undermines the effect of the TC decision and which wasn't > proposed in the TC discussion. > > Having taken hold of the matter and overruled the maintainer, we have > a responsibility to see through the consequences, and to avoid > backsliding by the maintainer.
http://bugs.debian.org/640874 $ apt-get source leave [...] $ head -n 1 leave-1.12/debian/rules #!/bin/sh -e It seems pretty clear that the TC is currently not making sure that his decisions get acted upon (and this despite Jakub who pointed out the mistake in https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2012/08/msg00001.html). But in this particular case, you took it in a very personal way and made the effort to follow through. IMO this discrepancy and your antagonistic attitude is harming the committee's reputation. I agree that Josselin's decision was a poor one but frankly I would much rather see people work on better N-M integration. If the time spent on those discussions would have been invested in getting d-i to write proper N-M configuration entries, some of the reasons why N-M is unpopular in Debian would have been squashed. /me hopes Michael Biebl is not demotivated by this series of GR and ends up working with Sorina to get this fixed: https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2012/09/msg00252.html Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
