Re: veto?
Hi, Peter Samuelson: Do you mean, perhaps, that the Further Discussion option in a GR should be weighted much more heavily than other options, so that it can beat another option if only a few people rank it higher? I am not in favor of that. You can't give any one option more weight in a Condorcet election because each input vote is a ranking of options. You _could_ require the Condorcet winner to have a 2:1 (or 1.5:1 or …) supermajority over FD. IMHO, doing this would not be good for Debian, for reasons already stated. Or perhaps you mean there should be an official platform where someone can say, effectively, Before deciding to do X, you should take into account that I, someone directly involved in its implementation, will not help because I'm not convinced X is a good idea. Also, this may demotivate me from related work Y and Z. But, well, anybody can already say that. Exactly. That platform already exists, it's called debian-vote (or -devel or -project … take your pick). Anyway... I don't really see people leaving because of a decision they disagree with. I assume that some do, but they're doing it quietly. If the systemd decision had gone the other way (i.e. pro Upstart), I would have done the same thing. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: veto?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 15/11/14 11:52, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Peter Samuelson: Do you mean, perhaps, that the Further Discussion option in a GR should be weighted much more heavily than other options, so that it can beat another option if only a few people rank it higher? I am not in favor of that. You can't give any one option more weight in a Condorcet election because each input vote is a ranking of options. You _could_ require the Condorcet winner to have a 2:1 (or 1.5:1 or …) supermajority over FD. IMHO, doing this would not be good for Debian, for reasons already stated. Or perhaps you mean there should be an official platform where someone can say, effectively, Before deciding to do X, you should take into account that I, someone directly involved in its implementation, will not help because I'm not convinced X is a good idea. Also, this may demotivate me from related work Y and Z. But, well, anybody can already say that. Exactly. That platform already exists, it's called debian-vote (or -devel or -project … take your pick). As mentioned in another reply, how people vote doesn't give a good insight into how they will or won't act The things people write in debian-vote or debian-devel give more insight but only for those people who take the time to write and even then somebody has to read all of those opinions and potentially summarize them. E.g. if 10 people are going to stop or limit their maintenance of essential packages because of some technical or policy change, that would be very useful to know in advance of any GR. Anyway... I don't really see people leaving because of a decision they disagree with. I assume that some do, but they're doing it quietly. If the systemd decision had gone the other way (i.e. pro Upstart), I would have done the same thing. It is not just about people formally resigning, people may simply change the way they are working, may be less likely to volunteer for things (like mentoring or helping the FTP masters with the NEW queue), etc. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJUZznvAAoJEGxlgOd711bEHecP/A5q5D1HFsf6SZn19dJBB/pl suSTFJjxqkvWdoRW20ZWqeV8G9p422/BG4hw1z1dSUWIq8gCm49i5+lN0d/u+lme oTKlFIGm2DKMGu6zHgBYIPL3ee1HBDwMpWWiHLB8ICqHaXFMy2sgIW/iXFFXC0oq jGpRa1Yp7UPl4aXjwo067Lhmt5eQv4CNakkvLn99sHASCeQYsbbbXNUPG6iIcSyM dfSyy6MuKhjsi8dsd9CLNkl57DLKAnnJFuGGIj5oQ2I1GCG/gwp9B5mmd1kaKeM0 9a6nxEg/plN9pTZHTY9H5EF50+qa8iVa5dRFPJRKlhtWPG/bNZxs74dti1N87uao +RoUNW5xtMg6ta7Qdzz2Vm6ouxmxeQ+mxCDm3Tkx6VXVxXmSqCmpxvEny9l+MMjh KDaMkOVwB/7JM95Rv/3/zJ3rAKnMVZ0zwqZH+E5WHOuhhj8GrH5NJkUiTl4PxvoT QzQe3ZXuhr70BHwGRUKu8UfincYgLRGnotsYK6qidh8Im5cQ1r9r+YTU7af1SAVv AEA+K0BWjg1+rTLwAoTz1k0Lht+N+Q//GMYcLLXJus5b1gCCSyaf8ZggENuQULFx OnzugBAjVBPoBvFTJ1VsG3yky0IcXND+p3ulsrIy+FQaDZE2Cd1NVcuhBEdBOdLb R61ORPN6dVUnOrfh5kOz =WcsA -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/546739ef.6080...@pocock.pro
Re: veto?
[Daniel Pocock] Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example, allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be better than people leaving outright? That sounds like a pretty good description of either a GR, or the Technical Committee. We have both of those things, and they both work, though not everybody is happy with them. Do you mean, perhaps, that the Further Discussion option in a GR should be weighted much more heavily than other options, so that it can beat another option if only a few people rank it higher? I am not in favor of that. Or perhaps you mean there should be an official platform where someone can say, effectively, Before deciding to do X, you should take into account that I, someone directly involved in its implementation, will not help because I'm not convinced X is a good idea. Also, this may demotivate me from related work Y and Z. But, well, anybody can already say that. Anyway... I don't really see people leaving because of a decision they disagree with. What I do see is people leaving for social reasons, either changes in their own lives, or perceived social changes in the Project. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141114232146.gb26...@p12n.org
Re: veto?
This one time, at band camp, Daniel Pocock said: It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only option for them is to resign. Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example, allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be better than people leaving outright? I veto this idea. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: veto?
Hi, Stephen Gran: This one time, at band camp, Daniel Pocock said: Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example, allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? I veto this idea. I agree. If you want to block a change, convince the rest of us that it's a bad idea (how to do that is left as an exercise for the esteemed reader; hint: diatribes about the change being The End Of Debian | Linux | Unix | Civilization aren't going to work), and/or vote Further Discussion. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: veto?
Hi, On Donnerstag, 13. November 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote: I veto this idea. I agree. I don't. I veto the idea that this idea is dead, I think we should discuss it some more. cheers, Holger, who might have forgotten to indicate sarcasm... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: veto?
On 13/11/14 13:16, Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, On Donnerstag, 13. November 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote: I veto this idea. I agree. I don't. I veto the idea that this idea is dead, I think we should discuss it some more. If veto is dead, what would the FTP masters do when somebody decides to upload something before checking it is 100% free? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5464ac26.5030...@pocock.pro
Re: veto?
Hi, Daniel Pocock: If veto is dead, what would the FTP masters do when somebody decides to upload something before checking it is 100% free? That's a different sort of veto. That's what they do, and they've got a mandate to do exactly that. The veto we're talking about here is more along the lines of * DD A has an idea * DD B…Y think it's OK * DD Z think it's complete bulls**t and states I veto this * therefore the idea is not adopted Ostensibly, this would encourage consensus because, well, we take into account not only the stated reasons for Z's veto but also all the other semi-rational stuff that comes with Being Human, and talk about it until we all arrive at a conclusion we all can live with. In reality, this will not work. One major reason for this is that the evolution of Being Human proceeds in _slightly_ longer timeframes than the emergence of e-mail and IRC communication. For confirmation, look at any flame war where people write things they would (hopefully) never say to the recipient's face. :-/ -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: veto the veto?
On 13/11/14 15:25, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Daniel Pocock: If veto is dead, what would the FTP masters do when somebody decides to upload something before checking it is 100% free? That's a different sort of veto. That's what they do, and they've got a mandate to do exactly that. and they do a fine job of it too The veto we're talking about here is more along the lines of * DD A has an idea * DD B…Y think it's OK * DD Z think it's complete bulls**t and states I veto this * therefore the idea is not adopted Ostensibly, this would encourage consensus because, well, we take into account not only the stated reasons for Z's veto but also all the other semi-rational stuff that comes with Being Human, and talk about it until we all arrive at a conclusion we all can live with. In reality, this will not work. One major reason for this is that the evolution of Being Human proceeds in _slightly_ longer timeframes than the emergence of e-mail and IRC communication. For confirmation, look at any flame war where people write things they would (hopefully) never say to the recipient's face. :-/ That is a worst case scenario but there is no system of decision making that doesn't have edge cases However, I think people are missing the point. It is not just about people participating in the decision, it is about revealing the percentage of people willing to actually execute the action that is decided upon, do nothing, or execute some other action, such as resigning. Veto is probably the crudest term to use when looking at such a problem, even if it is not a perfect solution, it is relevant. If DD Z in your example is a volunteer he/she doesn't have to do anything if he doesn't like the decision anyway. Maybe he will even choose to resign or work on another part of Debian. Fine, that is what a voluntary organization is all about. The current GR process doesn't show how many people will end up in such situations. In fact, they are hidden from view unless you go looking through all the posts on debian-devel to see if they have shown their hand. If veto is a no go (if you'll excuse the pun), are there other ways that we can quantitatively and concisely let people reveal how they will or won't act in relation to a certain choice or decision? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5464cc5e.40...@pocock.pro
Re: veto?
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 01:41:33PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: On 12/11/14 13:12, zlatan wrote: Please no. We need less and not more layers of governance/'political' complexity in project. Lets stop acting like government and more like community. If a veto facility is created effectively, then it will deter people from complexity and force people back to looking for consensus If it is too easy to veto something though then I agree that would slow the project down You have a goverance problem. You think, I know, I'll fix it by introducing vetos!. Now you have two governance problems. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141113160749.gl4...@raptor.chemicalconnection.dyndns.org
Re: veto?
On 11/13/2014 05:03 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote: On 13/11/14 13:16, Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, On Donnerstag, 13. November 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote: I veto this idea. I agree. I don't. I veto the idea that this idea is dead, I think we should discuss it some more. If veto is dead, what would the FTP masters do when somebody decides to upload something before checking it is 100% free? Veto != policy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5464fb3b.7020...@alvarezp.ods.org
Re: veto?
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:04:05 +0100 Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro wrote: It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only option for them is to resign. Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example, allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be better than people leaving outright? There are enough arguments already without that uncertainty. What does it mean if someone vetoes a GR? That just leads to anarchy. Decisions get made, some you agree with, some you don't. Some of the ones you disagree with can be accommodated and development moves on. If a binding decision is finally made, whether that be by a GR or a delegated team, there is no point allowing people to perpetuate the arguments long afterwards. There is enough scope for that already without making it formal. -- Neil Williams = http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgp5WloE31Y0k.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: veto?
* Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro, 2014-11-12, 11:04: It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only option for them is to resign. Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example, allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be better than people leaving outright? I hereby veto joeyh's decision to quit. -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141112105032.ga9...@jwilk.net
Re: veto?
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:04:05AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only option for them is to resign. Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example, allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be better than people leaving outright? Can you elaborate which decisions and how many DDs could veto them? -- WBR, wRAR -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141112104327.ga16...@belkar.wrar.name
Re: veto?
On 12/11/14 11:43, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:04:05AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only option for them is to resign. Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example, allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be better than people leaving outright? Can you elaborate which decisions and how many DDs could veto them? I didn't want to be too specific, to give other people a chance to make suggestions However, one possibility is that anybody maintaining an essential package and anybody who is a DPL delegate would be able to veto. The implication is that somebody can still win a GR against the veto, but they do so knowing that they will have to find somebody else to maintain some essential packages. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54633fa7.1050...@pocock.pro
Re: veto?
On 12/11/14 10:04, Daniel Pocock wrote: It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only option for them is to resign. Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example, allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be better than people leaving outright? I'm not sure a veto would help matters when you get disagreement on topics that involve a lot of emotion. If a vote went through with a majority wanting option A and then a small group veto'd it, you might avoid the small group resigning, but what impact would that have on the majority who've had their views overturned? Short term, perhaps it would avoid resignations but longer term you may find it's those who had their votes veto'd that resign. Regards, Gary signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: veto?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Please no. We need less and not more layers of governance/'political' complexity in project. Lets stop acting like government and more like community. Cheers, zlatan On 12 November 2014 11:04:05 CET, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro wrote: It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only option for them is to resign. Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example, allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be better than people leaving outright? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54633095.9060...@pocock.pro - -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: APG v1.0.9 iQJSBAEBCAA8BQJUY06jNRxabGF0YW4gVG9kb3JpYyAoRGViaWFuZXIpIDx6bGF0 YW4udG9kb3JpY0BnbWFpbC5jb20+AAoJEC5cILs3kzv91W4P/ixE9NWYWVL6iw86 yvyUfngp8FHtOWUHFc/4LyhV2tyXbew6KYs+er1dpyFTr/5/8qBmuNTwJ26IIxov oyGR375mu1ocAV9gZyB8Ny4EnCAif5WQhhzgtufEG0jgLW0ds0htiH4ph5S+GKk6 q0trXhoyuirhzhk897qbeodW5Tb66+q591pO64fT0szWHE3XK8vScwsA6vdtG+yg 56Mn4KSSzWEivhgSZrYB76kc7bIcOK4uoFxg84UJ1GQ4SRZIcQGSQg98DkT1fWFH SQj/Qx7QuHjl3bkB3ZoNaZ/OUPqGU5kUp11XrXjZHFKvgIvUJjVWqRQh7GdVL/ap Emze2u+cELcXuQu3uJRbLyTImYM7jPrlGf7OXFWZeIbQU6HyNcfV6elAO3/3jSr7 Mo636sJsOsaKwpLcl9i/u/8WBGghwZWlWrcReoIr4aUULKds/SDaYP8npoAaSKv9 xpm8apkUuuOK9rfd6qx7KAnnkMwhApWWQE07qDau7s15DzG2wJyoZUNEapFXmtUf hdwRJq6n7eAmtVF53ENOQzB0UDpcBFEn7Fi9LxLhl0DuGqLo6GjPKAnQ/QcOcIlP IDyDVb95Mw5do2M4JLAe1dPbcB//m3WRwrtIhw0CZHkArgtty5wJ1Gf3fFkkhEd0 5vi4O6YOmZ+qGDw7JXtU8JfJ7kUb =PNj6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/43426b11-51ab-470d-9e18-c6d24d73d...@riseup.net
Re: veto?
On 12/11/14 13:12, zlatan wrote: Please no. We need less and not more layers of governance/'political' complexity in project. Lets stop acting like government and more like community. If a veto facility is created effectively, then it will deter people from complexity and force people back to looking for consensus If it is too easy to veto something though then I agree that would slow the project down -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5463557d.2030...@pocock.pro
Re: veto?
Hi Daniel, aint the GR process exactly that, a way to say veto? Compare the current vote... cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: veto?
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 01:41:33PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: Please no. We need less and not more layers of governance/'political' complexity in project. Lets stop acting like government and more like community. If a veto facility is created effectively, then it will deter people from complexity and force people back to looking for consensus Or we could fix the TC instead. -- WBR, wRAR -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141112124813.ga20...@belkar.wrar.name
Re: veto?
On 11/12/2014 07:08 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: On 12/11/14 11:43, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:04:05AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only option for them is to resign. Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example, allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be better than people leaving outright? Can you elaborate which decisions and how many DDs could veto them? I didn't want to be too specific, to give other people a chance to make suggestions However, one possibility is that anybody maintaining an essential package and anybody who is a DPL delegate would be able to veto. The implication is that somebody can still win a GR against the veto, but they do so knowing that they will have to find somebody else to maintain some essential packages. I don't agree with filtering the people on what kind of package they maintain, or if they have a role delegated by the DPL. This makes absolutely no sense to me: in what way are they more competent, and why should they have more power than others? Like many, I'm sad to see Joey going. But the way to have him come back isn't by adding more complexity to our constitution. In fact, it'd be quite the opposite: he wishes for technical sanity, and not administrative decision making (and I have to admit that I can only agree on his view...). Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54638f3b.1020...@debian.org
Re: veto?
On 12/11/14 17:47, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 11/12/2014 07:08 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: On 12/11/14 11:43, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:04:05AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only option for them is to resign. Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example, allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be better than people leaving outright? Can you elaborate which decisions and how many DDs could veto them? I didn't want to be too specific, to give other people a chance to make suggestions However, one possibility is that anybody maintaining an essential package and anybody who is a DPL delegate would be able to veto. The implication is that somebody can still win a GR against the veto, but they do so knowing that they will have to find somebody else to maintain some essential packages. I don't agree with filtering the people on what kind of package they maintain, or if they have a role delegated by the DPL. This makes absolutely no sense to me: in what way are they more competent, and why should they have more power than others? It is not a suggestion that such people are more or less competent than anybody else. Rather, it is a recognition of the fact that if these people are going to leave anyway (or are not going to lift a finger to support a particular decision, as everybody is a volunteer after all) then people proposing the decision need to actively demonstrate that they can take on the extra workload that will result from getting a decision in their favor. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54639613.1010...@pocock.pro
Re: veto?
Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro writes: On 12/11/14 17:47, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 11/12/2014 07:08 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: On 12/11/14 11:43, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:04:05AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only option for them is to resign. Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example, allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be better than people leaving outright? Can you elaborate which decisions and how many DDs could veto them? I didn't want to be too specific, to give other people a chance to make suggestions However, one possibility is that anybody maintaining an essential package and anybody who is a DPL delegate would be able to veto. The implication is that somebody can still win a GR against the veto, but they do so knowing that they will have to find somebody else to maintain some essential packages. I don't agree with filtering the people on what kind of package they maintain, or if they have a role delegated by the DPL. This makes absolutely no sense to me: in what way are they more competent, and why should they have more power than others? It is not a suggestion that such people are more or less competent than anybody else. Rather, it is a recognition of the fact that if these people are going to leave anyway (or are not going to lift a finger to support a particular decision, as everybody is a volunteer after all) then people proposing the decision need to actively demonstrate that they can take on the extra workload that will result from getting a decision in their favor. Oh, I see. You're expecting people proposing GRs to be receptive to rational argument. I fear you've not been paying close attention recently. Well done. I congratulate you on your wisdom. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg,GERMANY pgp8GLErTraVz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: veto?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 12/11/14 18:36, Philip Hands wrote: Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro writes: On 12/11/14 17:47, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 11/12/2014 07:08 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: On 12/11/14 11:43, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:04:05AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only option for them is to resign. Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example, allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be better than people leaving outright? Can you elaborate which decisions and how many DDs could veto them? I didn't want to be too specific, to give other people a chance to make suggestions However, one possibility is that anybody maintaining an essential package and anybody who is a DPL delegate would be able to veto. The implication is that somebody can still win a GR against the veto, but they do so knowing that they will have to find somebody else to maintain some essential packages. I don't agree with filtering the people on what kind of package they maintain, or if they have a role delegated by the DPL. This makes absolutely no sense to me: in what way are they more competent, and why should they have more power than others? It is not a suggestion that such people are more or less competent than anybody else. Rather, it is a recognition of the fact that if these people are going to leave anyway (or are not going to lift a finger to support a particular decision, as everybody is a volunteer after all) then people proposing the decision need to actively demonstrate that they can take on the extra workload that will result from getting a decision in their favor. Oh, I see. You're expecting people proposing GRs to be receptive to rational argument. I fear you've not been paying close attention recently. Well done. I congratulate you on your wisdom. If rational argument is not necessary, then I'll propose a GR myself: Debian will give every DD a present of 1 million BTC for Christmas. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJUY5ySAAoJEGxlgOd711bEoykP/2ibacRc+firPLXHsYv+BYzJ ahN6RL7GqW0abHXEgqbvQkg6sUOHcU5R0hxRGm0kCYg43hybmPQaLvEkteh3r9Qd 580p5hsQdtuTBHu9mFTeHBHeWKxI7dfqi+Zt5TEfvi/1brFn2rCEkdZXXX6KJkv4 diA4lKJ5MPPBW5ZiEMKLZMM6uF1I0fdkW6jbd3yI6wsxXbzHiH3OBSKFl3mrX6fV 61ByJX+lcsDfCzTOguVGUanbXMQvuA6W4NVGOTqXOSjoXAYxLdgEmjqeCLJYcOx8 8ysEnMH1/SL1jsYOvBq7MX75I7PqCPrMka23I9MsD9AKfJcHqz8tud/YYL6V8E8/ C7ZcthPxJWRVxrW8cNAQVnjp/dYwKSyyKj+iv7KHm1smnv6qS9okJ5t0FO90kJj5 2oVlowNG9UaVDUIeu5MhKIjMb3YAF3S9dK++T9vkMGZfQgextFzrsSoHBbGxasic iwlkK0A0ldo+x/RWoQ4vMcbQvwKuNPJhxrwPcE6JAn/i8fzloXxfeAP6OkBHqbOm GsCjKZyuSWEZGBm0dvb3D+o+ril+Mvsw03jHxqkmfCMmUa/y2uxqj57/km29Osyw nZj4xT5bDEEu9gFaNDBdTVc9IzznfXbIL7h9H3Z+U03wo/IaNIb/0/PMKUW+w7Ny e7ux+oFkalhzB1uua4zt =n+Cj -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54639c92.7010...@pocock.pro
Re: veto?
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 06:44:50PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: You're expecting people proposing GRs to be receptive to rational argument. I fear you've not been paying close attention recently. Well done. I congratulate you on your wisdom. If rational argument is not necessary, then I'll propose a GR myself: Debian will give every DD a present of 1 million BTC for Christmas. There is a difference between not necessary and won't help in the case we are discussing. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: veto?
On 11/12/2014 02:04 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote: It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only option for them is to resign. Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example, allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be better than people leaving outright? I would prefer a solution with less politics. Not more. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5463aa4d.8040...@alvarezp.ods.org
Re: veto?
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:20:01 +0100, zlatan wrote: We need less and not more layers of governance/'political' complexity in project. Lets stop acting like government and more like community. When you have a small number of people involved in a 'community' then you can get by with little governance. This requires that each member have a reliable mental model of identities and interactions within the group, so as to track the member's own responsibilities to and expectations of other members. In communities up to Dunbar's number[1] plus-or-minus some unknown error bar probably smaller than Dunbar's number, this works fine. As community size increases beyond that point it starts to break down. Debian has more than 1000 developers, thousands of other contributors, and hundreds of thousands or even millions of users. All of these have some stake in decisions that the project makes. Debian is long past the point where everyone in the project can know everyone else. Politics is just another tool. Talk about politics (as opposed to political talk) is also technical discussion. More or less governance is never the answer to political problems. The answer is _better_ governance. [1] Not a specific number. Thought by anthropologists to be about 250 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/m40jho$9bs$1...@speranza.aioe.org
Re: veto?
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014, Daniel Pocock wrote: It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only option for them is to resign. Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example, allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be better than people leaving outright? You got it backwards. This would people LEAVE outright. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141112221512.gc20...@khazad-dum.debian.net
Re: veto?
* Daniel Pocock (dan...@pocock.pro) [141112 13:42]: On 12/11/14 13:12, zlatan wrote: Please no. We need less and not more layers of governance/'political' complexity in project. Lets stop acting like government and more like community. If a veto facility is created effectively, then it will deter people from complexity and force people back to looking for consensus We already have that, at least for any decision done by dpl or delegates. Check the GR process for details. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141112224709.gg...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: veto?
Andrey Rahmatullin w...@debian.org writes: On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 01:41:33PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: If a veto facility is created effectively, then it will deter people from complexity and force people back to looking for consensus Or we could fix the TC instead. It would be lovely if that were the fix. If I could fix this by, say, resigning from the TC, or if we could make different TC rules that would make the problem go away, that would be AWESOME. That would be a clear path forward for this whole mess. I think it's worth mentioning here that the reason why I argued for making a TC decision on systemd was because I hoped some sort of official decision-making process would provide some closure. As Michael correctly points out, he was dubious that would happen, and history has proven that he was right and I was wrong. But remember, the reason why multiple people in the project asked the TC to get involved was because, prior to that decision, we had a different problem: an ongoing flamewar that had been recurring for two years, and which was also horribly demoralizing. The sad and difficult problem here, I believe, is not that the TC is off on some tangent. Rather, I suspect the TC is remarkably representative of the project here. The project is deeply, strongly, and even ideologically divided on this complex of questions... and so is the TC. The project is struggling to reach any sort of shared consensus or even agreement on what we're trying to get consensus *on*, and so is the TC. The project contains fundamental disagreements about even the facts of the situation, and so does the TC. You can't solve those sorts of problems with process. If there really is a disagreement over fundamental principles, which is what Ian has been arguing that there is, and which I have also been arguing there is along a different axis of fundamental principle, then it doesn't matter what framework or mechanism you use to try to structure the conversation. You'll still end up at loggerheads over a matter of fundamental principle. We have a lot of procedural and legalistic mechanisms that can be, and are currently being, invoked for such disputes, which means that we end up in deep process arguments that are highly demoralizing and off-putting to people who (rightfully) want our community to act like a community and not a legal system or a legislature with a hostile and adversarial process. Stripping away that sort of system at least gets rid of that problem, but it's still not going to somehow magically resolve an actual fundamental conflict over principles. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87389nncn5@hope.eyrie.org
Re: veto?
Daniel Pocock dijo [Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:08:23PM +0100]: I didn't want to be too specific, to give other people a chance to make suggestions However, one possibility is that anybody maintaining an essential package and anybody who is a DPL delegate would be able to veto. The implication is that somebody can still win a GR against the veto, but they do so knowing that they will have to find somebody else to maintain some essential packages. As a DPL delegate, I'd strongly veto that idea. That clearly creates first- and second-class citizens. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: veto?
On 13/11/14 06:29, Gunnar Wolf wrote: Daniel Pocock dijo [Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:08:23PM +0100]: I didn't want to be too specific, to give other people a chance to make suggestions However, one possibility is that anybody maintaining an essential package and anybody who is a DPL delegate would be able to veto. The implication is that somebody can still win a GR against the veto, but they do so knowing that they will have to find somebody else to maintain some essential packages. As a DPL delegate, I'd strongly veto that idea. That clearly creates first- and second-class citizens. Not quite: if people are choosing not to remain a citizen at all, then they are neither first or second class. If there was such a scheme in place, then I don't think people could use it frivolously, at least not for too long. E.g. maintainer of essential package foo vetoes 5 GRs in a row. At some point, other people will start stepping forward to maintain that package or propose an alternative. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54646273.7070...@pocock.pro
