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: Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:20:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Sun Mar 3 17:18:49 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: -5.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21533 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/71F1E754-1175-4B4F-B000-FA6CB3ECEF7B@kitterman.com Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 31 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2024 17:16:40 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <71F1E754-1175-4B4F-B000-FA6CB3ECEF7B@kitterman.com> X-Original-References: <80455cbe-cc13-4240-8517-f9ba0512c32e@debian.org> <93E5EE46-6619-4584-B28E-1D4B6A3AB389@kitterman.com> <20240229204833.2feaaf80@debian.org> <20240301130818.326b8094@debian.org> <37d26985-2c75-4e79-b0ef-3e464b89381e@debian.org> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:15543 On March 3, 2024 6:12:09 AM UTC, Andreas Tille wrote: >Hi Christian, > >Am Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 11:48:57PM +0100 schrieb Christian Kastner: >> On 2024-03-02 23:11, Andreas Tille wrote: >> > I'm curious why you believe I didn't care=2E I likely would have reve= rted >> > my change if I didn't have more urgent matters to attend to=2E >> > Re-uploading a package just to revert the Maintainer and Uploader is >> > lower on my priority list than fixing other RC bugs=2E >>=20 >> To add another perspective: what if reverting is not about "fixing" the >> package again, but a courtesy or sign of respect towards the person tha= t >> was upset by this action=2E Wouldn't that change the priority entirely? > >Thanks for pointing this out=2E I agree I failed here=2E I hope to not >fail the same way in future again since in this very case I can't fix >this any more=2E >=20 >The lesson I hopefully learned now is that this kind of failures seems >to put other arguments I gave for a policy change in the shadow at least >for those team members I would love to reach for a constructive >discussion=2E Thanks both for your response and for Christian for doing a much better jo= b than I managed trying to communicate this=2E Scott K