motu-release will revert libgems-ruby to the old state.

[Soren Hansen]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 08:20:56PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>I'm happy to engage in a discussion as to whether motu-release
>>*should* have this authority. In fact, I'm inclined to think that they
>>should.  I'm simply pointing out that they currently do *not*.
> I have my opinion on it, but certainly if MC produces a contrary
> judgement, I'll accept it.

I'm not conveying a judgment, merely stating an opinion.

> The initial upload came in, what appeared to me to be, the middle of a
> discussion about the desirability of this change.  My recollection
> (I'm typing this on my phone, so I don't have effective access to
> references) is that one of the proponents of this change suggested
> that he thought we could all agree the proposed approach was an
> improvement in the then current situation.  I disagreed and said I
> thought it was not.  The next word was that it had been uploaded.

You seem to be completely missing my point. I'm not trying to discuss a)
the technical merit of Mathias' libgems-ruby changes nor b) the events
that lead up to Mathias' uploading said changes. I'm simply questioning
motu-release's self-appointed authority to be the judge, jury, and
executioner.
 
> I think that after I posted to the ML that I objected to the upload
> and asked for reasons it shouldn't be reverted, during my discussion
> with Mathiaz on IRC, and after sistpoty indicated motu-release was
> reviewing the situation, I believe there was ample opportunity for
> people to comment.

You realise that the time for appeals is usually *after* deliberation
and ruling and *before* execution of sentence, right?

> Finally, I think that leaving this upload in place for the time it
> would take for a tech board review of the situation would have been
> problematic.  I believed that a rather immediate resolution was
> important (whichever way it went).

First off, I think that the frequency of TB meetings is a very poor
excuse indeed for making decisions on their behalf. That said, you've
once again completely missed the point, namely that noone has ever
granted motu-release the authority that they're pretending to have.

> More generally, I would suggest that if last minute pre-freeze uploads
> are not subject to any scrutiny and motu-release's ability to be
> interested in activites is determined to appear fully formed out of
> nowhere on FF day, it will only incentivize more rushed uploads at the
> last minute pre-FF.

As I said already, I'm quite open to discuss whether motu-release should
have this authority. That doesn't change that they in fact currently do
not.

> P.S. Just speaking for myself here.  

As am I, by the way, if that wasn't clear.

-- 
Soren Hansen               | 
Virtualisation specialist  | Ubuntu Server Team
Canonical Ltd.             | http://www.ubuntu.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/attachments/20080903/fd29296c/attachment.pgp