Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Scott Kitterman Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 13:00:02 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Wed Feb 28 11:55:45 2024 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.51 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate:hard: -5.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21499 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/2EAC0281-39C8-43E7-A35C-48DFD8F16412@kitterman.com Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 27 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 11:54:54 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <2EAC0281-39C8-43E7-A35C-48DFD8F16412@kitterman.com> X-Original-References: <80455cbe-cc13-4240-8517-f9ba0512c32e@debian.org> <93E5EE46-6619-4584-B28E-1D4B6A3AB389@kitterman.com> <13029673-f563-4667-9f2a-c5e9e5fb1afe@debian.org> <05C0AB9D-651C-43A0-83CA-01CD31013A94@kitterman.com> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:15517 On February 28, 2024 9:54:55 AM UTC, Thomas Goirand = wrote: >On 2/28/24 00:54, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> It's self-induced=2E I mean if it's demotivating to have people point = out that you didn't follow the policy, then you can solve that all by yours= elf by following the policy=2E If I take your argument to its logical conc= lusion, all of Debian's rules can be demotivating when people ignore them, = so we should get rid of them all so your feelings are safe=2E > >The way you're wording it, it feels like we on purpose didn't follow what= was written in the policy=2E That's not the case=2E > >The point you're missing here, is that this policy is not obvious at all,= and it's easy to either not understand it, or not know about it=2E That seems rather tangential to the question at hand=2E In the cases you = cited the people in question both knew about and understood the policy=2E = I agree that I am not really following your logic=2E Andreas' explanation = makes more sense to me, but it's neither here nor there as you don't need t= o convince me=2E My only concern is that we not cause people to leave the team over this ch= ange=2E I'm personally ambivalent about it=2E Scott K