svn commit: r335281 - in head: . audio audio/gnump3d

[Andrej Zverev]

Please, can you add more rage and anger in your e-mails? As the
conversation came to a deadlock :-)

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Philippe Audéoud <jadawin at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013, John Marino wrote:
>
>> On 12/3/2013 09:08, Philippe Audéoud wrote:
>> >
>> > Adam,
>> >
>> > I don't care about "mine" port... I'm just saying that
>>
>> Philippe,
>> You've denied several times that you don't care about your port, but
>> your actions yesterday clearly state otherwise.  It's fine because it
>> serves as an example.
>>
>> >  I'm just saying that
>> > nothing is clear around maintainer and that if maintainer is set, it
>> > have to be respected.
>>
>> THIS!
>> This is exactly the point.
>> You've come to understand that the listed maintainer is a complete
>> monopoly and it is this concept to which we object.   I would argue that
>> maintainer has been respected, but you clearly feel otherwise.
>>
>> >  I agree that we need to be more reactive to fix a mistake
>> > but rules don't have to be too permissive regards to maintainer respect.
>>
>> Fixing a typo or obvious error is not a sign of disrespect.  In most
>> cases, the maintainer should actually be grateful that the port was
>> restored quicker than he/she would have done it.
>>
>> > Clearly, nothing to see with "People need to un-knot their panties".
>> > Serioulsy.
>>
>> Actually, it was quite appropriate.  That's exactly how I see it too.
>>
>
>
> No comment.
>
>> > Now, that everybody gave his opinion about panties, playground and other
>> > off topic remarks, can we have a *debate* on how we can write or update
>> > current rules about maintainer and each committer relation, please ?
>> > Obviously it's a problem encountered by many committer and it have to be
>> > fixed. Or are we only good to troll ?
>>
>> I'm leery about this.  On another thread I've seen the first suggestion
>> and I don't like where it's headed.
>>
>> Again, I think portmgr should be proactive about this and not wait for
>> "suggestions".  The problem is clear, this is not new.  I consider this
>> part of the responsibility of the portmgr -- to update policy as needed
>> and clearly the current policy is not satisfactory.  The portmgr is made
>> up of smart guys, surely they can update policy without a circus of a
>> debate.
>>
>
> Do you mean that portmgr@ have to do everything alone and can't be help?
>
>> > I suggest to work with marino@ and rene@ to help portmgr@ and bapt@ ask it too.
>> > So, if you want to be constructive (more than talking about panties, I mean),
>> >  feel free to send me an email and i will put you in the "workshop".
>>
>> I'm happy to "review" any proposed policy change from portmgr and
>> provide feedback.  I really don't want to get into a "debate" though.  I
>> think the issues are pretty well defined, so I trust the solution would
>> be straightforward.
>>
>
> Yeah, i noticed you don't want to debate.
>
> --
> Philippe Audéoud