Guy Maor writes ("Bug#342455: tech-ctte: Ownership and permissions of device
mapper block devices"):
> I agree with your technical assessment, Ian.
Do you have an opinion about 660 vs 640 ? And the question of
equivalence to root ?
> On 12/13/05, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think the committee's ruling should explicitly castigate
> > the devmapper maintainer for failing to engage constructively with any
> > of the submitters.
>
> But I disagree with this. I think such a statement would be
> patronizing and unhelpful.
I don't see why it would be patronising for us to officially criticise
someone for their behaviour. In this case it has been outrageously
obstructive.
In particular, I think that telling someone off for being
unconstructive might help clarify what is and isn't sensible behaviour
by a maintainer.
Something like:
N. The Technical Committee is disappointed by the approach
taken by the relevant package maintainer, who has demonstrated an
unhelpful and obstructive attitude. Lack of effort to fix a
problem is acceptable; disagreement about the proper behaviour is
acceptable; even insistence by the maintainer on the correctness
of their approach is acceptable. Failure to even acknowledge the
matter coupled with bare refusals of assistance (in the form of
NMUs, in this case) is not acceptable.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
