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

[Cesare Tirabassi]

On Wednesday 03 September 2008 11:18:54 you wrote:
> Cesare Tirabassi schrieb:
> > This is your opinion. However, the charter of the motu-release team has
> > been extensively discussed at a motu meeting [1][2], and then in the
> > ubuntu motu mailing list [3].
>
> As far as I can see only the name was discussed, not any goals or
> procedures that are made use of.

First of all, I have not participated in that discussion, so I read what I 
read.
And what I read from the IRC log is that people felt motu-release was 
appropriate since it was not just a matter of accepting or not FFe, but more 
in general about "active helping manage things up through release" which "is 
what the team has been doing since gutsy".

From the ensuing discussion on the m.l.:

"I don't think there's anything wrong with having a MOTU Release Team,
here's what I think such a team might deal with:

 - Freeze decisions (UVF, Final Freeze, NEW packages, etc)
 - Planning of transitions
 - Liaison with the QA team in regards of getting people involved in
fixing certain kinds of bugs
 - Liaise with Release Team (ubuntu-release)
 - Setting Release 'Goals'

You see what I mean: the agenda spans not only the last eleven weeks of
the release but much more than that. In addition to approving all kinds
of requests, there'd be more general planning and talking to others
involved."

Further:

"While I agree entirely that motu-release should have a larger role
than handling freeze exceptions, I'm inclined to agree with Scott that
for hardy, this team is best positioned to handle the necessary
approvals to meet the release goals."

I do agree that that discussion wasn't followed up properly as it should have 
been (and Soren is totally right about this), but this is certainly not a 
fault of motu-release and the fact that we DO, de-facto, care about the 
quality of the universe/multiverse release.

> > If anything, the team description in the wiki, which you use as a basis
> > for your interpretation, is obsolete. I guess that was the description
> > for the old motu-uvf team and I urge the team owner to take actions in
> > this respect.
>
> The team owner is MOTU Council. What would you like to see instead of
> "This team takes care of approving and denying Feature Freeze exceptions
> for Universe and Multiverse."?

Its not up to me to say what I like or I don't like, the current description 
is obsolete and doesn't reflect the role of the team, as discussed during a 
motu meeting, a mailing list discussion and as the community perceives it.
Now its up to YOU (YOU=team owner=MOTU Council) to take stock and do what you 
have been delegated by the motu community to do.
I don't know if you realise how bad it is that Soren (an MC member) has to 
publically request that a de-facto situation should be officially blessed.

Cesare