Ian,
On 1/7/19 10:57 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
On 1/6/19 1:38 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
[systemd stuff]
[systemd stuff]
I appreciate that the fights over systemd have been a defining
experience for many of us. Many of us are still bitter, me included.
I also appreciate that in some respects these fights are still,
unfortunately, being fought and harm is still being done (although
things are much less bad than they were).
But I really don't think it is helpful to link the recent arguments
over behaviour in the project, with init system diversity problems.
The issues are very different. And the toxic emotional and political
baggage from the init system stuff is really bad. So bringing init
system stuff into this conversation about acceptable conduct just
increases the hurt and argument, but does not lead to any better
conclusions.
With all due respect - and recognizing your central involvement in the
init-system-neutrality issue – I have to disagree with you here.
IMHO, the issues are VERY similar - having to do with groupthink,
diversion from groupthink, and really, really poor processes (and
perhaps attitudes).
It's not unlike a current issue in the church I belong to. On the one
hand, it's an issue over a change to one of the church's external signs
- but it has blown up into an issue over who gets to make decisions
(volunteer committee vs. a community-wide vote), hurt feelings among
volunteers when someone deigns to protest a unilateral action (which
seem to trump dissent), a rather authoritarian board that is currently
asserting far more power than granted by our bylaws (IMHO), a seeming
general acceptance of these authoritarian tendencies ("we don't care
about that particular issue, so we're staying out of it"), and a general
unwillingness to discuss issues via email list (leaving no other venue,
other than stage managed meetings, called by our board, at their
leisure, and at inconvenient times). People have left over this kind of
bull, and I'm thinking seriously about it myself (after 30 or so years).
Where Debian is concerned, the same set of issues are playing out - this
time over the Code of Conduct, but they also played, with (IMHO) far
more serious consequences over the systemd issues - including your own
resignation as chair of the Technical Committee. As you put it then,
"While it is important that the views of the 30-40% of the project who
agree with me should continue to be represented on the TC, I myself am
clearly too controversial a figure at this point to do so. I should step
aside to try to reduce the extent to which conversations about the
project's governance are personalized." HOW IS THIS NOT THE SAME
SCENARIO PLAYING OUT AGAIN?"
The current discussion makes it clear that we obviously didn't learn
anything from the systemd issue – to the severe detriment of the project
as a whole. It strikes me as particularly relevant to point this out –
as evidence of significant underlying pathologies that go well beyond
the narrow issue of "acceptable conduct." As you put it "the toxic
emotional and political baggage from the init system stuff is really
bad" - IMHO, the root causes are the same, and we're going through it again.
Respectfully,
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra