Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 06:15:47PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > > Especially do I fail to understand why a member of the TC, who took part > > in such discussions before > > (https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/05/msg00457.html to name an > > example), and encouraged people to do so (that is how I understand the > > mentioned mail), > > So to be clear, no, I was not endorsing a hijacking of that package. My
> The bacula package *was* in bad shape at that time, and something needed to > be done. That doesn't mean the particular "something" that was done - > starting a painful flamewar on debian-devel that led to the previous > maintainer deciding to walk away from the package (i.e., voluntarily > orphaning it after being demotivated) was the right thing to do. However, > since the maintainer did walk away voluntarily, the TC didn't really have > grounds to intervene... and probably wouldn't have sided with him anyway, so > probably wouldn't have been less painful. I don't think the outcome can be accurately described as "voluntarily orphaning it after being demotivated". He didn't really orphan it; he only gave up trying to get it back after it had already been hijacked and he could not find sponsors to upload his competing version. > Many of the earlier "hijack" mails on debian-devel also followed a very > different process than the one described in the present thread (e.g., > allowing an indeterminate amount of "time", resulting in the original > maintainer resuming maintenance of the package - > https://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2006/09/msg00071.html); or resulted The linked-to mail does not show such a resolution; changelog shows that the original maintainer made one more upload, there was one NMU, and then the would-be hijacker took over the package anyway. > in amicable resolutions, with the previous maintainer explicitly approving > the hijacking (https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/05/msg00183.html); > or were intercepted by someone in the know, who diverted the hijack to an > NMU (https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg00568.html). > > Unfortunately, it seems this has served as precedent, and the message people > have taken away is that it's perfectly ok to hijack packages... when almost > none of the "hijacking" statements have ever resulted in anything of the > sort. In 3 of those 4 cases the maintainer did change. I think making extra bureaucracy a hard requirement would likely have a negative total effect, due to some desirable takeovers like the Bacula one not happening at all as a result. > > is now on a killing spree. All he is doing is to encourage people to give > > up their idea to improve Debian. > > From hijacks to killing sprees... yes, I definitely think there's a > language barrier of some kind here. ;) You seem to think it's a contradiction to both use a term with negative connotations such as "hijack" to describe an action and to say that the action is the right thing to do. I don't consider it contradictory. The word "hijack" acknowledges that it is a controversial action, one which you should expect to defend, and which perhaps wouldn't be required in an ideal world. But it can still be the best choice in practice. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1338591082.21597.51.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid
