Call Monday 24 Jan 2005

[Adam Jackson]

On Wednesday 26 January 2005 01:40, Roland Mainz wrote:
> Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> > What about silently adding Xprint dependencies to Xaw?
>
> "Silently" ? The whole Xprint merge and the Xaw update was _ANNOUNCED_
> two times (at least!) in the public and the Xaw patches were reviwed and
> tested for around _ONE_ year. Really noone can claim that this was
> silent (I thought this item was outlined VERY CLEAR in the Xorg arch
> phone call and the posted summary about the Xorg arch board vote - why
> are you now coming up with this (invalid) argument ?).

I think the point you're steadfastly missing here is that xorg_arch is an 
anachronism, no one reads it, there's no real architectural discussion done 
there.  You're appealing to an authority that few others with a commit bit 
seem to recognize.

Not that I'm saying the current status of the arch board is a good thing.  
Quite the contrary.  But it's not fair to accuse Daniel of consensus-by-IRC 
for the same reason it's not fair to accuse you of consensus-by-xorg_arch@.  
Neither one is a wholly appropriate forum for architectural changes.  (And 
that sucks.)

In fact the only appropriate forum, afaict, is xorg@ and bugzilla, because 
that gets you the broadest readership and most inclusive audience.

> > What about breaking the build for BSD (#909), a platform you surely
> > don't own?
>
> The build bustage something which wasn't intentionally and I already
> apologised two times - and now the third time. I am sorry for that.
> That's far different from Daniel's current behaviour of even refusing
> MINIMUM cooperation (how often has he been asked to revert the change -
> three times ? Four times ?)

Are you more interested in getting your way politically, or in getting work 
done?  You're the xrx maintainer by all accounts; why haven't you re-enabled 
it in HEAD yet?  I strongly doubt anyone here is foolish enough to override 
maintainer authority twice.

> And the 
> argument that "... removing 'xterm' from the default build was done in a
> consens ..." is invalid as there was no consens at this point (and it
> doesn't make a consens just because Daniel asked his fellows on IRC to
> post some "good change... hurray"-emails to the list afterwards)).

Thin ice here.  There's a difference between speaking your own mind on a 
subject and shilling for someone else's ideas.

> > Yes, Daniel sometimes acts too quickly and without consulting the list,
> > but it's not like you have a clean slate.  And for you to request a
> > board meeting about Daniels behaviour... words fail me.
>
> No, Daniel has finally going too far this time. And I am not the only
> one who thinks that some action is now required after he blew up the
> tree _INTENTIONALLY_ (see my comment about
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2363 above).

These people should have names.  Right now I'm only hearing Roland Mainz 
objecting.  If X.org wants to run itself as an open project, that requires 
open governance, which includes the right to face your accuser and the right 
to a public trial.

Otherwise we'd be walking straight back to xfree86 core team days, and that 
model does not work.

> And it's not 
> nice either that Daniel permanetly runs around and offends people
> intentionally (not counting todays item with the
> MAS-doesn't-belong-here-"fun").

Again, watch your phrasing.  Daniel presented a list of facts stating why MAS, 
though it may be an X.org project, is not a freedesktop.org project.  Not 
"will never be", not "should not be", simply "is not".  If facts are 
offensive that's the listener's problem, not the speaker's.

- ajax
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/release-wranglers/attachments/20050126/ce6dd1f9/attachment.pgp