[csw-maintainers] Our core values: providing straightforward experience to the user

[Philip Brown]

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski
<maciej at opencsw.org> wrote:
> No dia 28 de Dezembro de 2010 16:59, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> escreveu:
>>
>>> It seems like you see yourself as someone who makes maintainers do
>>> more work. ...
>>
>> Err... its not that I "like" seeing the package release manager that
>> way. It seems merely a statement of fact.
>
> I wanted to avoid drilling down to what facts are, but I have no choice.
>
> Merely a statement of fact, you say.  That's what I'm asking: is it
> really a fact?  Something like "on the 30th of December 2010, user
> wahwah has committed a new revision to gar subversion repository,
> which builds xcbproto package in /opt/csw" would be a fact.  What you
> call here a fact, is a causal connection.  Causal connections can
> potentially achieve the status of facts, but not before you find good
> evidence for them.  What you see in our case is that (1) the release
> manager refuses to include a package in the repository, and then (2)
> the maintainer makes changes to the package.  These two are facts, no
> issues here.  But you don't see the release manager causing
> maintainer's actions.
>
> Perhaps anybody could make the same suggestion to the maintainer, and
> the result would be the same?  Perhaps the package maintainer can
> simply walk away, and even the release manager is ultimately impotent?

It looks like you are approaching in a very roundabout way, a
discussion of, "what is the role of the package release manager?"
Or perhaps you are attempting to 'deconstruct' the role, in an attempt
to allow 'anybody to make the same suggestion'?
Please be clear what your goal is in this discussion.

(you are also being, in my opinion, overly pedantic about difference
between 'fact' and 'causal relationship'. I dont really see any
usefulness in nitpicking the difference :-} Just say what your actual
goal is, and lets discuss further.)

To give a proactive,similarly pedantic answer to a bit of your email, though:
One can accurately say that an action "causes" a second action, if the
second action occurs as a result of it.
So it is true to say that the package release manager refusing to
include a package in the repository, 'causes' the change to take
place, if it does take place.

That's not to say that it is always the only way the change could have
taken place. Certainly, it *might* have taken place if another
maintainer suggests it. However:

1. maintainers dont usually bother to go check out other peoples'
packages in detail, so the issue would probably never come up without
a release manager
2. some maintainers will ignore "suggestions", and only make changes
if their package will not be released without it.