[csw-maintainers] proposal

[Philip Brown]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Thu Jun 23 17:39:32 -0400 2011:
>
>> actually, just the opposite is true. I've been petitioning the board
>> for an EARLIER vote on the related issues, for over a month
>> now. They
>
> Yes, we've been seeing the same things on board@ as we get on
> maintainers at .  Things like "good news, I solved the problem with this
> so we can keep a human release manager,"[....]
>
> The vote writeup you did was an attempt at this.  I _want_ you to do
> this writeup as much as possible as that removes avenues for complaint
> later.  What I'm not going to allow is for this to be hijacked and
> derailed by changing the content of the vote.
>

What you really seem be saying here is,
"What I'm not going to allow, is for a vote on whether or not to keep
a human release manager", even if everything else about the "new
process", migration to current, etc. is kept intact.

Which is exactly what I've been saying; you are controlling and
limiting voting choices.

To diffuse other people's accusations about "It's all about Phil
trying to keep control":
I don't care whether the release manager is me, or someone else.
Frankly, I'm rather tired of dealing with it myself.
I speak up for it, because I honestly believe that opencsw is better
off with *A* release manager, or a release manager group **in addition
to**  automation,
 vs pure automation all by itself.


Anyways.
next email is my  proposed amendments