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

[Soren Hansen]

On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 02:19:00PM +0200, Cesare Tirabassi wrote:
>>>> 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.
> OK, let me try to recap,

Ok.

> we had a discussion during a MOTU meeting, 

Calling it a "discussion" is stretching it a bit, but yes, it was
mentioned.

> followed by a discussion on the motu mailing list, 

Yes.

> followed by this very discussion.  

Yes.

> What else do we need, do we need to vote on each and every single
> issue or the MC can take stock of the discussions that already took
> place and assume the responsibility for which the MOTU community
> delegated it?

In my understading, it's not the MC's job to seek out random things that
the vocal parts of MOTU think, bless it, and turn it into law. It's
ceratinly not our job to replace discussion within the MOTU team.  

According to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Council it's our job to make
decisions if otherwise no progress would be made at all. I don't think
we've reached that point, even though it seems close.

> Either you (MC) take this responsibility now or you don't, we go
> through another endless loop of discussions where we agreed that, yes,
> in principle we all believe that is a good thing,

One of the problems is that "it" is not very well defined. Some have
said "the same as ubuntu-release", but I can't find anything written
down in one place that specifies what their job is. Other have made a
few different, specific suggestions.

What I'd like to see to actually get anywhere with this dicussion is a
suggestion for a charter from the motu-release team. I'll be sending
them an e-mail shortly asking for this.

> If this is the idea of leadership that the MC wants to communicate I'd
> rather we dispense with the MC alltogether.

Could you -- in general terms -- explain what it is you think the MC
should be doing that we're not already doing? I think we might be
misunderstanding each other.

>> 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..
> I was under the impression that this was the case, 

No. motu-release contacted a member of the MC *after* their ruling and
execution.

> eg. that MC was well aware and agreed that this was the right course
> of action.

Not exactly. We're not happy with the lack of transparency of the
discussion that lead to their decision as well as the *very* short
notice period.

> What you are telling me now instead is that "some member of
> motu-release" had discussed and agreed with "some member of the motu
> council".

motu-release (in some form, I'm not sure) contacted a member of
motu-council. The motu-council member acted on behalf of the council.

-- 
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/20080903/17a4ea9f/attachment.pgp