[csw-maintainers] amendments and issues with recent prop

[Philip Brown]

Snipping a lot for readability. I'm trying to do that in a way that
still preserves what I believe to be original meaning and intent. If I
botch it, my apologies, please correct it.


On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Jonathan Craig <jcraig at opencsw.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:

>>
>> It seems you are saying that you "look at the pkgsubmissions mailing
>> list already".
>[...]
>
> Ah, but the reality is that I pay greater attention to list emails
> that are associated with bug reports.  Thats were I really feel I can
> learn something.

In a way, your reply backs up what I am saying. You pay (greater)
attention, when *someone else* has noticed an issue. But what if
no-one is comitted to examining and bringing up issues in the first
place?
This is a core concern I have.

 [...]
> You seem to continuously ignore the reality that the proposed process
> allows anyone to review any package and seek corrections prior to
> publication.  IMO, this is a form of intellectual dishonesty.  You
> haven't said it but from your posts I can only assume that if you
> can't be the "human" in human centric then you have no wish to
> participate.

I thought I have explicitly said the opposite. I dont care if it's me,
but I believe there does need to be *someone*, or someones, with that
explicit task, otherwise it wont get fully done.



> As to human vs automated processes you are ignoring that an automated
> process can apply the same level of scrutiny to every package
> regardless of the number submitted.

People keep trying to force this into a "human, OR automated process",
and claiming this is what I want.
Yet not once have I advocated getting rid of the automated process. My
preference is for
"human examination, AND automated process".

I have been requesting this be made available as a choice, but it is
being blocked.