Hello, On Fri 11 Oct 2024 at 03:51pm -06, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Helmut" == Helmut Grohne <hel...@subdivi.de> writes: > > Helmut> I see how Ian had a bad experience earlier. His refusal to > Helmut> interact with opponents vaguely makes sense on those ground, > Helmut> but doesn't help the matter. His refusal to interact with > Helmut> CTTE members removes our ability to solicit feedback in > Helmut> order to resolve the matter. Therefore I suggest that we > Helmut> completely turn down the request on procedural grounds: > Helmut> Either he is willing to discuss the matter with us (not with > Helmut> systemd people) or we cannot help resolve it. > > I think this sounds like a great general principle. In order to bring > something to the TC, you need to be willing to work with the TC at least > to work on a solution. I would encourage the TC in drafting language to > turn down requests under these grounds to point out that if the > proponent of the request is uncomfortable working with the TC, they can > find another proponent. If they cannot find another proponent, it > strongly suggests that the issue might not have enough support to > justify a TC intervention. I think we should put some effort into Ian's bug, and not reject it on purely procedural grounds. We have had several bugs where key parties have simply ignored our requests for engagement, and we have had difficulty resolving those bugs without that engagement, but we have nevertheless been able to make progress. Ian is explicitly limiting his involvement in order to protect himself. That's at least as good as, if not preferable to, implicitly limiting one's involvement by simply ignoring TC requests for engagements. It seems, therefore, unfair to summarily dismiss Ian's bug if we didn't do that for those other cases. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
