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

[Soren Hansen]

On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 12:35:54PM +0200, Cesare Tirabassi wrote:
>>> 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.

Me too. I somehow rarely have time to attend the MOTU meetings :(

> 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 

I don't think I suggested that? If I did, I apologise, that was not my
intention.

> and the fact that we DO, de-facto, care about the quality of the
> universe/multiverse release.

And that's a good thing!

>>> 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 basis for your interpretation, is obsolete.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, 

Sure it is. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's. That is not to say
that your suggestion will replace the current one verbatim, but I really
prefer not to have the MC dictate a particular wording.

> the current description is obsolete and doesn't reflect the role of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.

How exactly do you know how the community perceives it? I don't remember
a survey asking "Does the motu-release team have the authority to
unilaterally revert people's changes with virtually no prior notice? If
not, is it ok if they just go ahead and assume this authority and do it
anyway?". Perhaps I just wasn't asked, because I've already made my
opinion clear.

> 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.

Perhaps I don't. Exactly how bad is it? I prefer a council that actually
discusses things with the community instead of just making random
assumptions about what the community thinks and believes. Much like I
prefer a motu-release team that actually checks if they have authority
to take such drastic steps before they just assume that they do. Heck,
if they had asked the MC we might even have said "yes", but alas..

-- 
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/20080903/944338f2/attachment.pgp