Raphael Hertzog writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"): > On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Ian Jackson wrote: > > 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
The Constitution is quite clear that the maintainer is not required to do the work. So until there is a patch available to leave available implement the TC-mandated policy requirement this bug will remain unfixed. Note also that in this case we didn't specifically override the leave maintainer's decision not to comply with policy. Even if we had, in general I would expect a fair proportion of overrulings to require NMUs. It would be too much to expect maintainers to always have the fortitude to implement a decision they didn't agree with. Naturally the complainants should give a maintainer the time and space to make the upload themselves, but after a reasonable interval I think an upload to a DELAYED queue is entirely appropriate. I don't think it is necessarily the TC members' job to make that NMU, but I guess it could help in some situations from a social point of view to have the upload come from one of the TC. And I think it would be too much to ask TC members to (for example) implement the required rewrite of the leave rules file. However, the management of the bug report(s) is not ideal. As the bug was reassigned to TC and then closed when the TC made its decision, there is not currently a bug open against leave. Please feel free to clone #688772 into a new bug and reopen it and assign it to leave. > 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). I'm sorry that we didn't spot that this needed further action. I read Jakub's message in support, and didn't follow through to the link, which I read not as a separate point needing action but rather simply as evidence he was advancing in support of my proposal. Since no-one seemed to disagree with the proposal (apart from mailing list problems now fixed) I didn't go and read the background. But there is no reason why anyone else can't help us out with this bug gardening. If you don't have time or inclination to do the bug gardening for "leave" please let me know and I will do it. Ian. PS: I would like to point out that as I myself don't actually agree with the TC policy decision in #688772, again I am I think excused from a requirement to do the work to help implement it. I don't think me insisting on this point is valuable, at least when we're just talking about bug gardening. My inclination to rewrite the leave rules file is limited, though. Do you think that's reasonable ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org