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

[Soren Hansen]

On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 02:44:12PM +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote:
>> Each individual MOTU has the right to upload any package in universe.
> Actually any core-dev as well... 

Of course. I consider core-dev a subset of MOTU.

> so a natural choice to announce plans for a reversion seem to be
> either ubuntu-devel at l.u.c or ubuntu-motu at l.u.c or both.
> 
> Exactly this was my first step. So...

Are you referring to the e-mail you sent out half an hour before the
upload or the post in the thread Lucas started only just the day
before?

>> However, there's no precedent for upload duels, and doing an upload
>> that reverts the changes of fellow MOTU would be considered very bad
>> manners indeed. If a situation arises where someone feels this is
>> necessary, I'd expect them to raise the issue with the proper bodies
>> of authority.
>> This is *not* what happened in this situation. 
> This is *exactly* what happened in this situation!

Please quote me correctly. You left out "Each individual MOTU has the
right to upload any package in universe.", which contains an important
point.  There's a *huge* difference between an individual developer
taking these steps, and an elected group of people taking the same
steps. One is rude, the other is rude *and* bullying.

>> In this situation, a body elected under one set of rules,
>> autonomously decides that is has additional authority, and trumphs a
>> MOTU's changes and reverts them.
> I've not found a single mail in my inbox questioning wether
> motu-release would have the authority after announcing that
> motu-release would be considering a reversion.

The tone with which Lucas started the thread didn't really suggest that
it was going to be the most constructive thread in the world, so it
didn't really seem like a thread I wanted to monitor very closely. So
next time:

	Inside of unconstructive, heated threads is not a very good place to
	make announcements. In fact, inside of existing threads of any sort
	is a bad place to make announcements.

I for one don't think a day and a half is ample time to wait for input
on a subject such as this.

Also, as I said to ScottK earlier in this thread:

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

> You've had the chance to complain, but failed to do so, and now
> *afterwards* start to pick at motu-release.

Well, excuse me for taking *one* day off from work. Are you seriously
suggesting that becaause I'm not around to read every little bit of
discussion on every mailing list and react immediately that robs me my
right to do so?

> Sorry, but that's highly bad manners in my opinion, and I do feel
> mightily stepped on my feet by this!

I really don't see why, but at least now you know what it feels like.

I find it particularly mindboggling that while you did this at least in
part because Mathias didn't take some of the input he got into
consideration, and even say that "motu-release unambigously encourages
[seeking advice of other]" you didn't even bother asking for *any* input
even from Mathias (as far as I can tell, at least).  That's a poor way
to set an example, IMO. 

-- 
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/20080908/fa0f297b/attachment-0001.pgp