svn commit: r335281 - in head: . audio audio/gnump3d

[Philippe Audéoud]

On Tue, 03 Dec 2013, John Marino wrote:

> On 12/3/2013 09:08, Philippe Audéoud wrote:
> > 
> > Adam,
> > 
> > I don't care about "mine" port... I'm just saying that
> 
> Philippe,
> You've denied several times that you don't care about your port, but
> your actions yesterday clearly state otherwise.  It's fine because it
> serves as an example.
> 
> >  I'm just saying that
> > nothing is clear around maintainer and that if maintainer is set, it
> > have to be respected. 
> 
> THIS!
> This is exactly the point.
> You've come to understand that the listed maintainer is a complete
> monopoly and it is this concept to which we object.   I would argue that
> maintainer has been respected, but you clearly feel otherwise.
> 
> >  I agree that we need to be more reactive to fix a mistake
> > but rules don't have to be too permissive regards to maintainer respect.
> 
> Fixing a typo or obvious error is not a sign of disrespect.  In most
> cases, the maintainer should actually be grateful that the port was
> restored quicker than he/she would have done it.
> 
> > Clearly, nothing to see with "People need to un-knot their panties".
> > Serioulsy.
> 
> Actually, it was quite appropriate.  That's exactly how I see it too.
> 


No comment.

> > Now, that everybody gave his opinion about panties, playground and other
> > off topic remarks, can we have a *debate* on how we can write or update
> > current rules about maintainer and each committer relation, please ?
> > Obviously it's a problem encountered by many committer and it have to be
> > fixed. Or are we only good to troll ?
> 
> I'm leery about this.  On another thread I've seen the first suggestion
> and I don't like where it's headed.
> 
> Again, I think portmgr should be proactive about this and not wait for
> "suggestions".  The problem is clear, this is not new.  I consider this
> part of the responsibility of the portmgr -- to update policy as needed
> and clearly the current policy is not satisfactory.  The portmgr is made
> up of smart guys, surely they can update policy without a circus of a
> debate.
> 

Do you mean that portmgr@ have to do everything alone and can't be help?

> > I suggest to work with marino@ and rene@ to help portmgr@ and bapt@ ask it too.
> > So, if you want to be constructive (more than talking about panties, I mean),
> >  feel free to send me an email and i will put you in the "workshop".
> 
> I'm happy to "review" any proposed policy change from portmgr and
> provide feedback.  I really don't want to get into a "debate" though.  I
> think the issues are pretty well defined, so I trust the solution would
> be straightforward.
> 

Yeah, i noticed you don't want to debate.

-- 
Philippe Audéoud