Bug#741573: Please decide on a reversion of commit 3785878 in the Policy's Git repository.
Le Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 09:22:47AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> Le Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:34:51PM +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> >
> > It is the demotion of the traditional menu from "should" to "can"
> > which is controversial. For the reasons I have already explained, I
> > do not agree with that.
>
> yes, it is that part that is controversial, and I would appreciate if the TC
> would focus on it, since this was the original topic of #707851, entitled
> “soften the wording recommending menu files”.
Dear all,
there are already 65 messages exchanged on this dicsussion (66 with this one),
not to mention the 91 messages in #707851 where, following the Policy changes
process, we reached consensus on Policy's section 9.6 on “Menus”.
The work started on May 11 2013 and ended on Feb 15 2014 with committing
changes in the Policy's Git repository. On Feb 25 2014, Bill reverted these
changes without discussion (commit 3785878075453e6e3cac7dff8e7607905d24026f).
After failing to engage a productive negociation with Bill, on March 14 2014 I
asked to the TC to decide for us, and informed Bill and the other Policy
editors by an email on the debian-policy mailing list.
More than one month and a half later, Bill still has not explained his position
to the technical comittee.
In that context, I am asking the TC to a) acknowledge that the changes to
section 9.6 after the Policy changes process was followed accordingly, and b)
ask for Bill's commit 378587 be reverted. In particular, in the absence of
Bill's contribution to the resolution of our conflict, I am asking the TC to
not discuss the menu systems and focus instead on correcting Bill's
misbehaviour.
What is at a stake here is not the Debian Menu system, it is the fact that in
Debian, it takes 5 minutes for one person to block one year of effort and
patience from multiple other persons.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: