Hi, On Sun, 05 Aug 2007, Steve Langasek wrote: > I have a good deal of respect for both of you as long-time contributors to > Debian; I hope you each manage to remember the contributions of the other as > well during this discussion, and not let recent conflicts dominate your > relationship with one another.
Sure. > > > The "team" currently consists of me. > > > That's not what the "Maintainer" field says. And the unix group associated > > is 'cvs_doc'. > > Raphaël, surely you're aware that there are many packages which give mailing > lists as the maintainer, without implying that everyone subscribed to that > mailing list is implicitly part of the "team"? (Moreover, haven't you said > that you aren't/weren't subscribed to -doc, which implies that if the > Maintainer field determines who the team is, you're not part of it anyway?) Sure. Note however that I always followed the package through the PTS and it has always been enough to be able to contribute (in particular to review changes committed by others). I used to be subscribed to -doc, but most the messages were uninteresting for me as I don't have a general interest in all the documentation but only in this document. > Summing the above two points together, I would argue that neither of you are > clearly in the right; I hope that you can both agree with this, and that > therefore neither of you should be treating the package as "yours". I accept my part of the blame. My behaviour has not been perfect but Andreas hasn't been much "welcoming". > Recent activity should generally weigh more heavily than historical > involvement when deciding who should be in charge of a package, but > particularly for a package such as this, we should surely be aiming for a > spirit of collaboration rather than territoriality. 100% agreed. > > Of course, he forbid anyone else with commit rights to commit directly. > > So it's quite logic that he was alone in applying patches. I respected > > his wish once because he gave a good technical reason. Now one more year > > elapsed and he again gave me the same reason: the conversion to docbook > > XML is pending. > > I would welcome clarification from Andi on this point, but it seems to me > that the "don't commit" rule might be designed to make it possible to > establish consensus about a change *first*, before committing it to the > repository. Sure. But I never intended to commit non-consensual stuff without review. If you look at my changes, you'll find trivial fixes and updates concerning the PTS and Alioth (both are parts of the document that I initially authored anyway). And I hope we can agree that I'm able to review myself when it comes to the PTS and to Alioth. > IMHO this is not an unreasonable rule; in many cases where > review/consensus is given high importance, but the time developers have > available to them for doing such reviews is limited, this is an effective > mechanism indeed. I don't follow your reasoning, in what way the fact to not commit helps for the review? > So I would give Andi the benefit of the doubt, that the "no commits without > discussion" is not intended to give him *personal* veto power over any > changes, but rather to ensure that any changes get multiple eyeballs on them > before being committed. Raphaël, it would be nice if you would give him > this same benefit of the doubt. I can try. It all boils down to a problem of trust. I trust Andy but he doesn't seem to trust me. He's behaving as if I had to make my proof as an author/editor of that document and I don't think that I deserve this treatment when I've been a former contributor. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
