[dev] [FRR TSC] Package Discussion (Doodle for times)

[Martin Winter]

On 25 May 2017, at 4:25, Donald Sharp wrote:

> So do you want to have the meeting to discuss the issue or not?

Personally, I don’t see this to get us anywhere moving forward
(Moving forward, as defined to come to an agreement of one of the
3 choices listed below).

I do believe that you raised some technical concerns and you are
pretty solid in your believe of them and they are different to
my views (and I’m pretty solid in believing in them).
Just to be clear: I don’t blame the holdout on you - I highly 
appreciate
your views, but I believe the only way forward is by getting more
people to chime in (preferably after they spent time investigating
it)

So unless we either get either more people involved, I do believe
forcing this to the TSC will get us a decision and I would love to
see if the TSC process actuality holds up in practice as defined.

If you see any better way to actually get this resolved, then do
please explain. My preference is to get this resolved one way or
another ASAP.
Until this is resolved I see little chance to get any other packages
built for FRR (I agree that they should have at least the same look
and feel) and I would prefer to get packages for 3.0 and Debian
/FreeBSD in there VERY soon.

Or did I completely miss the reason why we would have a meeting?

- Martin


> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Martin Winter
> <mwinter at opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
>> Ok, there seems to be some serious lack of interest.
>>
>> Only got response from David and “Robot” (supposedly Donald?).
>> (and Jafar saying that he doesn’t have time)
>>
>> Not sure how to proceed, so here is my rant:
>>
>> I’m thinking about just closing the Redhat Package PR (not merging,
>> just close) and someone else can address it again in maybe 6 months
>> or whenever there is any interest at all.
>>
>> I was really hoping to get something in - maybe not perfect, but at
>> least a start and everyone would be welcome to improve it afterwards
>> with PRs on top of the base.
>> The PR doesn’t break anything existing (current packages fail on 
>> all
>> OS for me, so I’m not building any RH packages at this time). So I 
>> think
>> it’s better than what we have now and it doesn’t break anything 
>> existing.
>> Based on this, my view would be to get it in.
>>
>> But it seems the discussion goes down the rathole on how to have all
>> perfect back to 2.0 release and rather have nothing instead of this.
>> There is very little technical feedback (Donald provided some and I
>> thank him for this - even if he has different views, I highly
>> appreciate them. The issue here is NOT the fault of Donald, but
>> the lack of feedback from just about everyone else. It just caused a
>> “standstill” as Donald and I have different personal views on 
>> some of
>> the technical points. But I think a 3rd/4th opinion could have solved
>> this very easily)
>>
>> Now from me pushing the long overdue decision, the whole things seems
>> to derail on how to get packages into distro’s. This is secondary 
>> to me
>> as they always lag far behind and I think there is no way around
>> providing up-to-date packages directly like most other projects do.
>>
>> </rant>
>>
>> Steps forward:
>>
>> I formally ask this now to be moved to the TSC for a vote on how
>> to move forward (as our charters outline). I want an agreement to
>> either
>>  - Close (abandon) the PR without merging
>>  - Accept the PR as it is
>>  - Clear indication of what is missing/broken and required to
>>     be fixed for it to be accepted.
>>
>> Let’s see how our TSC process works…
>>
>> - Martin
>>
>>
>> On 23 May 2017, at 8:56, Martin Winter wrote:
>>
>>> https://doodle.com/poll/5bx4c7krsb3xctxu
>>>
>>> Pick your times if you want to be part of the discussion…
>>>
>>> - Martin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TSC mailing list
>> TSC at lists.frrouting.org
>> https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/tsc