On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:01:32PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > I would really appreciate, if the ctte could leave this case as it is > > now and let us concentrate our efforts on fixing real issues and bugs > > instead of having to spend our time writing several pages long emails > > where we need to defend our work. The lack of trust that was shown > > towards us has definitely saddened me and taken out all the fun and > > enthusiasm I have for Debian. > > Well, I understand that the GNOME team are frustrated - it's quite plain > to see - but this goes both ways. I'm saddened by the attempt to find a > solution that at least partially satisfied the letter of the TC's > resolution while going against its spirit, and the apparent lack of > respect for the dispute resolution arrangements that we all surely > implicitly signed up to when we joined Debian. We're trying to make > Debian better too.
I'm following this discussion attentively, but I didn't have anything to add up to now. FWIW, I've very much appreciated Sam Hartman's first post and similar comments by other participants on both "sides". There is clearly frustration on both those sides. For the maintainers it is not easy to be overruled, nor it is pleasant to perceive something as a "crusade" (as Joss put it) against them. No matter whether the perception is correct or not, the feeling is there and need to be dealt with. For the tech-ctte, and for everyone else who believe in it as a dispute resolution body (which, I really have to observe, shall be the case for every member of the Debian Project), it is not acceptable to have the impression that the maintainers have tried to "work around" the spirit of a resolution. Again: no matter whether that is true or not, the feeling is on the table and need to be dealt with. There are no magic solutions for this. Please just don't assume the others are acting against you and try to see if at least part of what they are proposing could in fact benefit Debian users. According to what I've read up to now, it seems that the distinction between gnome-core and gnome could use further discussion. Surely it is a discussion that could have happened before, and _would_ probably have happened if people have pointed that out earlier. But it is happening now, and it is useful. Good! What worries me is the apparent lack of an important information: the greater goal/mission that the GNOME team have in mind. OTOH, the spirit of the recent tech-ctte decision can be summarized as: "allow users to opt-out of N-M + respect past (Squeeze) user choices to do so". I'm at loss at formulating a similarly succinct goal for the GNOME team. Maybe members of the GNOME team can help with that? For instance, Michael has written a few post ago: > Joss solution definitely addresses that while trying to preserve our > vision what we (as a team) and upstream define a default GNOME > environment. *If* the main point is adhering to an agreed upon notion of "*default* GNOME environment", any easy to use opt-out mechanism (including Recommends) should work, no? So I guess I am, and others with me, missing a relevant part of GNOME team's goals on this matter. If these goals can easily be stated, maybe we won't even need further votes and imposed decisions. Maybe we can just find a consensual course of action that both respect user choices *and* adhere to GNOME team greater goals. Thanks for considering, Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
