On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > [CCed to a wider audience, but reply-to and mail-followup-to set to > avoid a prolonged cross-list thread.]
> Sune Vuorela wrote: > > I have a hard time assuming good faith from people who are at war. > > Thank you for calling attention to that very disturbing IRC log. I'd > recommend reading the whole thing, I did, and I fail to see what is disturbing about it. I see a TC which has a good discussion over an emotional subject. And they succeed very well in keeping it civil almost all of the time. > 17:14:02 <Diziet> bdale: The GR is going to be another 3 weeks. > 17:14:09 <Diziet> We should decide on the automatic switch before then IMO What is disturbing about this? We were about to enter a freeze. Waiting 3 weeks before deciding on an issue which directly impacts the release doesn't sound like a good idea. How is that controversial? > 17:15:30 <Diziet> I don't think it's reasonable to say that we need a tested > alternative given how bad the situation is right now. If you think the situation right now is not so bad, of course you disagree with this. But from his point of view, that this situation is indeed very bad, there is nothing unreasonable about "let's do something, anything at all, to make sure this stops; problems we cause can be fixed". > 17:34:12 <dondelelcaro> Diziet: I don't think that stating that we don't want > to swap on upgrades is something we can agree on > 17:34:25 <dondelelcaro> Diziet: at least, not while the GR is happening which > seems to directly address this part of the question > > 17:34:28 <Diziet> dondelelcaro: That's not the question. The question is > whether it's something that would pass a TC vote. > 17:34:32 <Diziet> I'm done with consensus decisionmaking. > 17:35:34 <Diziet> That's not to say I'm not open to convincing. But > everything done by my opponents in this whole war has been done on a > majoritarian basis and I see no reason to limit myself to consensual acts. > > 17:36:48 <dondelelcaro> Diziet: we can always go to majoritarian, but if we > can agree, so much the better. > 17:37:17 <Diziet> dondelelcaro: I and my allies have been being shat on by > the majoritarians since February. It's too late for that. Fair enough, this is a part where the level of civility is lower. But Ian doesn't make an unreasonable point. If those who oppose him are forcing their side with an overruling vote, why should he refrain from doing the same? Consensus is great, but if we can't get there, we do want a decision. And majority is better than nothing. > (I'll also point out the pile of #action items Ian self-assigned, What's wrong with that? Would you rather see him say "This needs to be done; someone else do it please"? If the others would disagree that it needs to be done, they would speak up. That seems to be exactly the reason he's publishing his intent to do this: to make sure there is consensus that it is something that needs to be done. > as well as the pile of times Ian has effectively self-referred items > to the TC in the first place.) He is a DD, you know? Why would he not be allowed to refer items to the TC? He could of course ask a friend to do it for him, but that would just be useless work. He has every right to refer items to the TC. > I've already felt from the more public portions of the TC discussions > that Ian has been using the TC as a personal stick to hit people with. I don't share that view at all. Ian feels strongly about the issues, and gets carried away at times. IMO, that is a feature, not a bug, for a TC member. > Calling this a war, Have you followed the discussion? This _is_ a war. And not just from Ian's side: the pro-systemd amendment in the current vote seems to say "we demand that you trust everything we do, and we don't trust what you do". When I first read it my reaction was "Woah! That's a declaration of war!" How anyone could think it would be a good idea to include that in the amendment was beyond me. But I think I understand it now. Because it already is a war; no need to declare it. These people, just like Ian, feel strongly about this. And that is in fact a positive thing, just like I think it is positive that Ian feels so strongly about it. It means that they aren't cold-heartedly sabotaging the system as ordered by their corporate overlords. That may seem obvious, but it hasn't always been clear. ;-) > To put it bluntly: I don't believe this is even remotely acceptable > behavior from a member of the TC (or a member of the project in general, > but in the latter case someone has less potential to cause damage). Which part is the problem? That he has a strong opinion? That he wants to speed this up and get to a decision, even without consensus? That he states facts? The only problematic part I see is that he gets carried away at times. That's a very minor issue, and I forgive him, as long as he isn't insulting people. In fact, I not only forgive him; I applaud him for it; it shows that he cares. > Does anyone, in light of the above, feel even remotely comfortable > having Ian continue to wield^Wserve on the technical committee? Not only do I feel comfortable; he is exactly the sort of person I want there. > The frothing-mad rampage and the battle-on-every-possible-front needs > to end. Are you saying that Ian started an unprovoked war and just keeps fighting even though everyone else wants peace? I agree that many of us would love to see peace, but unprovoked? > I think it's safe to say that there's a substantial number of > people hoping that the current GR will actually *settle* this > question, with the project having spoken. Indeed. And I think Ian is one of the first people on that list. > We clearly have a pile of people who want to discuss and deal with the > init system issue, many of whom are still capable of productive > discussion and consensus-building. Many people are actively developing > solutions to make the situation better. Such as "we as TC want to write up a statement; I'll do the work"? Or is that an unacceptable way of forcing his opinion on others? > What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee? So let me get this straight; you blame him for abandoning consensus-building and therefore you want to use a majority-vote for kicking him out? Seriously? Thanks, Bas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
