* Chris Murphy [02/06/2022 13:05] :
This is inappropriate. And I don't accept that this is some sort of
language barrier issue either because of the consistently inflammatory
language you regularly use.
I must admit that I find the languague inappropriate as well. While I'm
more willing than Chris to excuse this as a cultural or language issue,
I would really appreciate it if we could keep the vitriol to a minimum,
especially when the language in question acts as the summary of the
SIG's IRC meeting.
At the meeting, there really was no discussion about finding a
resolution, but rather how to go about blocking the feature.
The discussion on how to improve the Change (or, at a minimum, bring
the use case to the attention of the Change owners) happenned at our
previous meeting on 2022-05-18 after a discussion on the server@ list.
I didn't think much of the Change owners' involvement in the thread
(with one comment by Neal being particularly cavalier, IMHO) and it
resulted in no change to the Change proposal.
Yes, the discussion in the last meeting quickly turned to the topic of
blocking the Change. After you've tried to find a resolution, being
mostly ignored by the Change owners and the Change has been approved
by FESCO, I'm not sure what else one can reasonably expect.
I'll take note of the fact that it took the threat of blocking the
Change to get the owners to engage in the conversation we should
have started having 2 or 3 weeks ago, which is really not the way
I think we should handle Change proposals.
Emmanuel