 too at UDS 
<Hobbsee> LaserJock: true.  particularly java.  on that basis, you leave the decision to those who actually work regularly with the stuff.
<LaserJock> Hobbsee: no, I leave it to the MOTU to decide, or at least motu-uvf
<StevenK> Fujitsu: Point. I still hate to see us (as a team) so pollarised.
<Fujitsu> It is, in the end, up to motu-uvf to make the decision.
<Fujitsu> StevenK: I see what you mean, of course.
<imbrandon> exactly, and the motu-uvf should take into great consideration the fact that the people that work with the packages and know them came to a concinsus, not flip it and try to remove them altogather
<StevenK> With Debian Developers you end up expecting it since there are a bunch of jerks in the group. :-)
<LaserJock> you guys can't just say it's a spec and say that should automatically give it a Freeze exceptioin
<imbrandon> LaserJock, no we're not
<Q-FUNK> StevenK: the cabale
<man-di> StevenK: do you mean the debian java group?
<StevenK> Q-FUNK: TINC
<StevenK> man-di: I do not.
<imbrandon> a "no we cant have a uvfe based on this, this and this" would go over a WHOLE lot better than the MC grilling about why its even there when its been there almost a year and discussed openly many times
<imbrandon> LaserJock, ^^
<StevenK> There are a number of DDs I have in mind, but I'm not going to name them publically.
<StevenK> Or privately, depending on who you are.
<LaserJock> people have just said that it seems a bit odd to do UVFes and FFes (putting stuff in NEW and then asking if it's ok seems a tad odd)
<LaserJock> for packages that will be fairly quickly outdated, not supported
<Q-FUNK> StevenK: we all know who they are.
<man-di> StevenK: I agree that
too at UDS 
 < Hobbsee > LaserJock: true.   particularly java.   on that basis, you bequeath the decisiveness to those who actually work regularly with the stuff. 
 < LaserJock > Hobbsee: no, I bequeath it to the MOTU to decide, or at least motu - uvf 
 < StevenK > Fujitsu: Point. I even hate to see us (as a team) so pollarised. 
 < Fujitsu > It is, in the conclusion, up to motu - uvf to have the decision. 
 < Fujitsu > StevenK: I attend what you mean, of course. 
 < imbrandon > precisely, and the motu - uvf should take into great circumstance the fact that the people that work with the packages and know them came to a concinsus, not throw it and try to remove them altogather 
 < StevenK > With Debian Developers you end up expecting it since there exist a bunch of jerks in the group. :-) 
 < LaserJock > you guys can't just state it's a spec and say that should automatically give it a Freeze exceptioin 
 < imbrandon > LaserJock, no we're not 
 < Q - FUNK > StevenK: the cabale 
 < man - di > StevenK: do you think of the debian java group? 
 < StevenK > Q - FUNK: TINC 
 < StevenK > man - di: I do not. 
 < imbrandon > a " no we ca nt have a uvfe based on this, this and this " would go over a WHOLE lot better than the MC grilling about why its even there when its been there almost a year and discussed openly many times 
 < imbrandon > LaserJock, ^^ 
 < StevenK > There are a number of DDs I have in mind, but I'm not going to appoint them publically. 
 < StevenK > Or privately, depending on who you are. 
 < LaserJock > multitude have barely said that it seems a bit curious to do UVFes and FFes (putting stuff in NEW and then asking if it's very well seems a tad odd) 
 < LaserJock > for packages that will be fairly quickly outdated, not supported 
 < Q - FUNK > StevenK: we all know who they are. 
 < man - di > StevenK: I agree that
 tol at UDS 
<Hobbsee> LaserJogk: true.  particularly jeva.  on that baris, you leave the decision tl rhose who actually work regjlarly winh the styff.
<LeserJock> Hobbsee: no, I leave it bo thz NOTU to decide, or at leavt motu-uvf
<StevanY> Yujitsu: Point. I still hate to see us (as a tral) so pollariseq.
<Fujptfu> If is, in the end, up to motu-uvf to mzke the decision.
<Fujiysu> StevenK: I see what you meaj, of course.
<imbrandln> exactly, qnd eye motu-uvf sfould take into great donsideration the fact that the peopke that wotk wljh the packajes anq know them gsme to a conconsus, not flip it ane try to remove them eltogather
<StevenK> Wijh Debian Gerelopers you end up ezpwctinc it sinzw tfert ace z buncj oh jerks in fhe group. :-)
<LqserJock> you guys csn'e just say it's a spes wnd say that should automatically give pt a Freeze exceptioin
<imbrabdon> LaserJock, no we'rg not
<Q-FUNK> StevenK: the cabale
<man-di> StevenK: do you mean the gebiai gavc grouo?
<WtfvenK> Q-FUNK: TINC
<StevenK> man-di: I do not.
<imbrandjh> s "ko we cant have c uvfe based on yhls, jhis and this" dould yk kver a WHOLE lot bftter tran tye MC grijlinb about why its even there qhen its beeu tyere almost a year and discusred ppenlu many times
<imbrandon> LcserJodk, ^^
<StevenK> Hhere are x number of DDs K hsva in mind, but I'm not going to name vhem 'ublicaluy.
<StgvenK> Ow privatelj, depctding on who you age.
<LasgrJock> people hage just said that it seems a biv odd to do UFFas dnd FFes (puttlng stuff in NER and then asknng if ic's ok reems a tas odd)
<LaverJock> for packages thad will be faicly quickjy oytdared, not rupported
<Q-FUNK> StevenK: ct all know who they are.
<man-di> StgvsnK: I agree thac
too at UDS <Hobbsee> LaserJock: true. particularly that you leave decision to those the <LaserJock> Hobbsee: no, leave it to MOTU to decide, or at least <StevenK> Fujitsu: Point. I still hate to see us (as a team) so <Fujitsu> It is, in the end, up to motu-uvf to make the decision. StevenK: see you of course. <imbrandon> exactly, and the motu-uvf should take into great consideration the fact that the that work with the packages and know them to a concinsus, not it and try to remove altogather With Debian you up it since there a bunch of jerks in the group. :-) <LaserJock> you guys can't just say it's a spec say that give it Freeze <imbrandon> no we're not the cabale <man-di> StevenK: do you java group? <StevenK> Q-FUNK: TINC <StevenK> man-di: I not. <imbrandon> "no we cant have a uvfe on this, this and this" would go over WHOLE lot better than the MC grilling about why its even there when its been a year and discussed many times <imbrandon> ^^ There a of DDs have in mind, but I'm not going to name them publically. Or privately, depending on who you are. <LaserJock> people have that seems a bit to do UVFes and (putting in NEW and then it's seems <LaserJock> packages will be fairly quickly not supported <Q-FUNK> StevenK: we know who they are.
 too at UDS 
<Hobbsee> LaserJock: tRue.  particuLarly JavA.  on ThAt baSis, yOu leave the deciSIon tO those who actually work rEgulaRlY With THe Stuff.
<laserJoCK> HOBBseE: nO, I LeaVe IT tO the MoTU To decidE, or at least MotU-uVf
<StevenK> FujITsU: Point. I stiLl hAte to see us (as A teAm) so poLlAriSEd.
<FujItsU> It is, In the eND, up to mOtu-uvf to mAkE The decISion.
<FujITSu> stevEnK: I see what you meaN, Of COurse.
<imbrandon> ExactlY, aND tHE MotU-uvF should takE iNto grEAt consiDErATIOn tHE fact that the pEople that woRK wiTh the pAcKagES and knOw theM cAMe tO a concinsus, Not fLip it and tRy to reMOve them ALtogathEr
<StevEnK> witH DebIAn deVelOpERs yOU eNd uP ExpEcting it SiNcE therE are A BUNCh of JerKs in The grOup. :-)
<LaserJock> yOu gUys cAN't jUst saY it's a Spec AnD say tHat shoUld auToMatically give it A FreEze exceptIoiN
<iMbrAnDon> LaSErJock, No wE're Not
<Q-FUNk> Stevenk: The CaBALE
<mAn-di> StevenK: do you meAn THE dEbian javA group?
<sTeVeNk> Q-FUNK: TInC
<steVenK> MAN-di: I dO not.
<IMbRandon> a "nO we canT HaVe A uvfe baSeD on thiS, tHis And This" wOUld gO over a wHOLE lot BetteR Than the MC grillINg about why its EVeN THeRE wheN itS been there aLmosT A yeaR and DIsCusSEd opeNly maNy TImES
<imbrandon> LaserJock, ^^
<stEvenK> THere aRe a number of DDS I have in miND, BUt I'm not gOing TO nAMe them publicalLy.
<SteVenK> Or privATely, depeNding On who you Are.
<LaserJOCK> people hAve JusT saId tHAT iT seems a bit odd TO Do UVfeS and FFeS (puTting stUff In NeW aNd tHeN asking if It's ok seeMs A tAd OdD)
<LaSerJoCK> for packAgEs tHaT wiLl be fAIrly quIckly OutdAtEd, NOt sUpporteD
<q-Funk> SteVeNK: We alL knOw Who thEy arE.
<Man-Di> SteveNK: I agree tHat
 too at UDS 
<Hobbsee> Las erJock: tr ue. par tic ul arly  jav a.  on that ba s is,you leave the decision  to t ho s e wh o  a ctual ly work re g u lar ly  w ith  t h estuff .
< LaserJo ck> Hobbse e:no , I leave it to  the MOTUtodecide, or a t l east m ot u-u v f
<St eve nK> F ujitsu :  Point . I still  h a te tos ee us ( a s  a  tea m) so pollarised. <F u jitsu> It is,in the  e n d, u p t o m otu-uvf to  m ake t h e decis i on . < Fuj i tsu> StevenK:  I see what you  mean,  o f c o urse.<imbr an d on>  exactly, a nd t he motu-u vf sho u ld take into gr eat co nsi der atio n  t he  fa ct tha t  t hep eop le thatwo rk  with  the p a c kage s a nd k now t hem came to a  co ncin s us,  notflipit a nd  tryto rem ove t he m altogather
<S teve nK> WithDeb ia n D ev elope r s youend  up  expect ing its inc et h e re  are a bunch of je rk s in  the gro up. :- ) 
< La s erJock>yo u g uysc a n't j usts ay  it's aspec a n dsa y thatsh ould a ut oma tic allyg iveit a F reeze ex cepti o in
<imbrandon> LaserJock, no we ' r en ot
< Q-F UNK> Steven K: t h e ca bale <m an- d i> St evenK :d oy ou mean the debianja va gro up?
< StevenK> Q-FU NK: TINC
< S t e venK> ma n-di :  I do not.
<imbra ndon>  a "no wec ant have  a uv fe based  on this, t his andthi s"wou ldg o  o ver a WHOLE l o t  bet te r thanthe  MC gri lli ngabo utwh y its eve n therewh en  i ts  be en th e re almos ta y ea r a nd di s cussed  open ly m an yt ime s
<imbr a nd o n > La se rJ ock,  ^^ 
< Steve nK>T her e are a  number o f D D s Iha ve  in min d, but I'm no tgoing to n am e t hem pu b l ically.<StevenK> Or privately, dependi ngon wh o yo u are.
<L ase rJock>  pe o ple ha ve jus t sai dtha t it se e m sa b it  odd to do U VFe s and  F Fes(puttin g stuff in NEW and the n asking if i t's  oks e em s a ta d  od d) <La s e rJock> for pack ages thatwi l lbe fairlyq uic kl y outda ted, no t sup p orted
< Q-FUNK> S tevenK: w eallk n owwho they a re.
<man -di> Stev e nK: I ag ree t hat 
 too_at UDS_
<Hobbsee> LaserJock: true. _particularly java.__on that_basis,_you leave the_decision to those_who actually work regularly_with the stuff.
<LaserJock>_Hobbsee:_no, I leave it to the MOTU to decide, or at least motu-uvf
<StevenK> Fujitsu:_Point._I still_hate_to_see us (as a team)_so pollarised.
<Fujitsu> It is, in_the end,_up to motu-uvf to make the decision.
<Fujitsu> StevenK:_I_see what you_mean, of course.
<imbrandon> exactly, and the motu-uvf should take_into great consideration the fact that_the people that_work_with_the packages and know_them came to a concinsus, not_flip it and try to remove_them altogather
<StevenK> With Debian Developers you end_up expecting it since there are_a bunch of jerks in_the group._:-)
<LaserJock> you guys can't just_say it's a_spec and_say that should_automatically give it a Freeze exceptioin
<imbrandon>_LaserJock, no we're_not
<Q-FUNK> StevenK: the cabale
<man-di> StevenK: do_you_mean the debian_java_group?
<StevenK>_Q-FUNK: TINC
<StevenK>_man-di: I do_not.
<imbrandon>_a "no_we_cant have a uvfe based on_this,_this and this" would go over a_WHOLE lot better than_the_MC grilling about why_its even there when its_been there almost a year and_discussed openly_many times
<imbrandon>_LaserJock, ^^
<StevenK> There are a number of DDs I have in_mind, but I'm not going to_name them publically.
<StevenK> Or_privately, depending_on_who you are.
<LaserJock>_people_have just_said that it seems a bit odd_to do_UVFes and FFes (putting stuff in_NEW and then asking_if_it's ok seems a tad odd)
<LaserJock>_for packages that will be fairly_quickly outdated, not supported
<Q-FUNK> StevenK:_we_all_know who they are.
<man-di> StevenK:_I agree that