Re: A different approach to a conflict resolution document

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,

To get the discussion rolling even faster, given the broad
 categories of the kinds of situations where conflict resolution may
 be required, it would be nice to have an idea what pushes peoples
 buttons (I know what pushes mine, but I would like to hear other
 peoples). 

A recent button was fast reports about new versions of
 packages (not a very good example, since the rapid consensus on IRC
 seemed to be that one should accept that as part of the cost of doing
 business as a developer).

A first place to look at is the list of conflicts submitted to
 the tech ctte. Or the last few flame wars ;-).

I guess we should realize that this document is not there to
 merely address disagreements -- it is the knock down-drag-around kind
 of conflict we need to look at.

manoj
-- 
 ... I want FORTY-TWO TRYNEL FLOATATION SYSTEMS installed within SIX
 AND A HALF HOURS!!!
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #5

[Duncan Findlay]

On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 01:01:55AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This is my current working draft.  As ever, do please send this list,
> or me privately, any substantive comments you have on it.

Will you please look at my suggestions? They still apply.

Thanks,
-- 
Duncan Findlay

Disputes between developers - content, draft #5

[Ian Jackson]

This is my current working draft.  As ever, do please send this list,
or me privately, any substantive comments you have on it.

Changes in this version
   - Put the Project Leader back as a person who might approve of
 it, since I found Bdale's email after all. (duh)
   - (Hopefully) improvements to Procedural stuff section (4),
 some text courtesy of Manoj, but heavily reworked by me.
   - Change `both Developers' to `both parties' in the
 bug reports section.

    __ _  
  __/\/\__ |  _ \|  _ \/ \  |  ___|_   _| __/\/\__
  \/\/ | | | | |_) |  / _ \ | |_| |   \/\/
  /_  _\/_  _\ | |_| |  _ <  / ___ \|  _|   | |   /_  _\/_  _\
\/\/   |/|_| \_\/_/   \_\_| |_| \/\/  
  
  DISPUTES BETWEEN DEVELOPERS

A *DRAFT* recommendation, which Ian Jackson hopes will be approved
in some form by the Technical Committee and the Project Leader.

THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT YET APPROVED BY ANYONE.  IT IS A FIGMENT OF YOUR
IMAGINATION.  IF YOU POSSIBLY SUSPECT THAT ANYONE EXCEPT IAN JACKSON
AGREES WITH IT THEN PLEASE GO WASH YOUR BRAIN OUT WITH FLAMES.


1. Motivation

Debian is a very large project.  We will inevitably disagree, and
occasionally get annoyed with each other.  To allow us to work well
together a bit of give and take is needed, and we must be willing to
present coherent reasons for our views, and to listen to and engage
with counterarguments.

This document gives some general advice about friendly interaction.
It also says what you can do when this fails: if you are having
problems working well with another Developer; or if, despite talking
to them constructively, you cannot agree.


2. Distinguish flameage from technical disputes and procedural errors

There are basically three kinds of dispute:

* Technical disagreements: these are largely about how software should
  work, and form the meat of many of the Project's discussions.

* Procedural disagreements: these are about how the project should
  work, rather than about software.

* Interpersonal disputes - just `not getting along'.  In any large
  community like Debian there will be personality clashes, and people
  you find difficult to deal with.

Try to keep these separate, and to get along as best you can.

For Debian to be able to construct good software, we must be able to
disagree with the way something is done or proposed in a constructive
and useful way.  The best designs result when all the issues have been
considered.

Useful technical discussions can become derailed by flameage.  To help
avoid this, please phrase your technical disagreements moderately.
If you receive a heated complaint about some technical matter, please
try to respond to the technical, not emotional, content !


3. Interpersonal behaviour

If you are having problems getting along with another developer,
firstly consider whether there's anything you can do to try to improve
the situation.  Send only moderate, reasonable messages; offer to talk
in some other way, perhaps even by phone (it's much easier to give
offence accidentally by email or on IRC than on the phone).

Check that there is some purpose to continuing the dispute besides
trying to extract an apology.  If you just want an apology, and aren't
getting it, then you will probably just have to put it down to
experience and move on.  Some people - particularly expert
programmers! - are just a bit difficult, and it's usually best just to
put up with them.

If it's a technical dispute, try to talk only about the technical
questions at issue.  Avoid complaining to the other Developer that
they are being unhelpful; that'll turn the conversation into a
shouting match.

If you really can't engage helpfully - for example, because the other
Developer refuses constructive discussion - you can refer the question
to the Technical Committee (including, possibly, reassigning a bug
report to them) or the Project Leadership.


4. Procedural mistakes and disagreements

The Project has many rules and conventions, written and unwritten,
about when certain actions are appropriate and are inappropriate.  For
example, sending a non-maintainer-upload of another Developer's
package, closing and reopening a bug report, and forwarding mail from
one place to another, are all sometimes appropriate but sometimes not.

If you feel another Developer has erred, by failing to go about things
in the right way, you should of course tell them about it.  But,
please try to make your message helpful and friendly.  Probably they
didn't know about the rule in question, or understand it differently -
do not assume that the error was deliberate.

If you can, refer the other Developer to some documentation explaining
what the right process is.  If such documentation does not exist,
consider writing it - it is difficult for nonexistent documentation to
be authoritative, and a misun

Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4

[Ian Jackson]

Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4"):
> > 6. Bug report etiquette
...
> > [...]  Bug reports are `todo list' items for the whole Project
> 
>   I strongly disagree. The Bug list is a communications
>  mechanism that allows us to improve debian, and as such, it is far
>  more, and in some aspects, less than, a TODO list. 

Well, how about `usually' ?  Most bug reports are at the very least
todo list items - although they are, as you say, much more too.  I'm
not sure `usually' adds much, really.  `Amongst other things' ?

I'm afraid I don't seem to be getting to grips with your point.

>   The BTS allows users of our packages to communicate with us,
>  and enables contributrs to work on the problems with the package. As
>  such, the bug severity is a simple mechanism to allow allocation of
>  scant resources; and it is important that there is a common
>  understanding of what a priority implies. 

Well, err, yes, but I'm not sure I understand your point.  I don't
mention severities.  Do you think I should ?

> > For example, here are some examples of situations where a bug report
> > should not be closed:
> 
> > * The bug was reported against A, reassigned to B, but
> > [disagreement over where the bug is]
>
>   In this case, obviously the BTS is recording a problem, and
>  not merely a todo list of either package. You may argue that all
>  problems should be fixed, and thus are todo items, but that
>  abstraction loses a llot of the characteristics of the phenomena that
>  a bts represents. 

Is it just that you're objecting to my characterisation of bugs as
todo list items ?  Indeed, I do argue that all problems should be
fixed, and thus are todo items.  Perhaps I'm just thinking of todo
lists as richer than you find them.

> > * The bug was reported; the maintainer felt immediately that it
> > was a spurious bug report of some kind, and closed it,
> > [...]
> > While a situation is being discussed, any relevant bug report(s)
> > should remain open.  [... and lots more about not playing bug tag]
> 
>   This last bit sounds fair enough.

I'm not sure how much that last comment of yours applies to the bug
staying open while it's being discussed, but that's really what I'm
trying to get at with my comments about todo list items.  Can you
think of a better way of getting the same point across - basically
that a problem shouldn't be considered dealt with, and should still be
paid attention[1], until it's actually sorted out ?

[1] Of course, attention levels will vary.  Thats what (I think)
severity levels are for.  But I don't go into severities here, except
to say you shouldn't fight over them in the BTS.

Ian.

A different approach to a conflict resolution document

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,

[Please follow up to debian-project]

Well, given that I have deep philosophical differences with
 the document Ian is crafting, and acknowledging that one ought to
 have an alternative, I have decided to start an collaborative effort
 to create a new one.

Unlike Ian, this is not MY draft -- this is an open invitation
 to anyone who wishes to contribute, to help us craft something that
 works. I do not claim to know the one true way, nor do I claim that I
 alone can come up with scenarios, solutions, and language that the
 developers from such diverse backgrounds can identify with and feel
 comfortable about.

We do need a focal point for this effort, a person who shall
 gather the contributions, and meld them into a document, and I am
 volunteering to be that person. (I would also love to have other
 people volunteer to share this responsibility).

The way I want to structure this document is to start with a
 needs analysis -- kinda like a social use case analysis.

How do we envisage this document being used? When shall people
 refer to it? What kinds of conflicts can be thus resolved?

Once we have done that, we can start with bullet points for
 possible solutions for the scenarios we have come up with. I would
 prefer the solutions to be slightly more concrete than ``now,
 children, just play nice'' -- decision trees, with options that y'all
 think may help in various stages of the sometimes vicious dog fights
 that seem to develop on our mailing lists.

I firmly believe we can mention guidelines of nettiquette
 without being patronizing. We can extend common conventions like the
 USENET Godwin's Law convention for our use ;-)

To seed the discussion, I am starting with a few use cases
 (stolen shamelessly from Ian's draft):
 a) Disagreement about Bug Report Severities
   i) What to do if you are the reporter
  ii) What to do if you are the developer
 b) Technical policies and other problems for which there is no clear
cut technical solution
 c) Non technical issue (like crafting a document like this)
 d) Disagreements in specialized sub-projects
 e) Disagreement about tailoring a package, default configurations,
and choices.

I would appreciate any comments, including, but not limited
 to, more use cases, opinions on whether we need to go into more
 details, and whether I am being a moron (hi aj).

manoj
-- 
 Sorry for mailing this article, I've obviously made a typo (168!=186)
 that's the price for being up all night and doing some "quick" checks
 before you go to bed  Herbert Rosmanith
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: All vi and clone to be removed from unstable

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Duncan" == Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


 Duncan> I can now see just how important this conflict resolution document is
 Duncan> going to be.

If we can craft one that works, most certainly. So far, none
 of us has demonstrated any ability to actuallycome up with a
 technique that appears to work.

I am praying for us.

manoj
-- 
 Art is Nature speeded up and God slowed down. Chazal
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: All vi and clone to be removed from unstable

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns  writes:

 Anthony> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 09:38:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 >> Since they are not derived from the one true editor. Apart from
 >> being a name calling moron, you have no humour gene.

 Anthony> Oddly enough, idiocy within Debian doesn't leave me
 Anthony> particularly amused any more, whether it's faked or comes
 Anthony> naturally. "Too much of a good thing", and all that.

Odd. Humor. Idiocy. All same. 

 Anthony> Do you at least have the intellectual honesty to note that
 Anthony> your mail differed from Ian's on three grounds: that he was
 Anthony> serious about his proposal, that he believed the people who
 Anthony> he was proposing jointly issue it would agree with it, and
 Anthony> that he had no intention of having anyone assume that the
 Anthony> draft was written by anyone other than him?

Intellectual honesty? Do I have to pound you on the head to
 drive the first two points across? 

a) and b) -- the message said that it was not really a joint
  message (draft or otherwise) in so many words.

>>> This is a joint draft message from the release manager and  Manoj
>>> Srivastava   Of course it is not, really. 

And after all that you can imagine that I intended people to
 assume the draft was written by anyone than me, I owe you an apology:
 I have no right to enter into an intellectual debate with an unarmed
 opponent. 

Good Day, Sir. 

I believe we are done.

manoj
-- 
 If I were a grave-digger or even a hangman, there are some people I
 could work for with a great deal of enjoyment. Douglas Jerrold
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: All vi and clone to be removed from unstable

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 09:38:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>   Since they are not derived from the one true editor. Apart
>  from being a name calling moron, you have no humour gene.

Oddly enough, idiocy within Debian doesn't leave me particularly amused
any more, whether it's faked or comes naturally. "Too much of a good
thing", and all that.

Do you at least have the intellectual honesty to note that your mail
differed from Ian's on three grounds: that he was serious about his
proposal, that he believed the people who he was proposing jointly issue
it would agree with it, and that he had no intention of having anyone
assume that the draft was written by anyone other than him?

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''


pgpoRp0h3BW5f.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 Ian> I think you must have a different experience to me.  I've found
 Ian> that many developers don't seem to share enough of the context
 Ian> and unspoken rules.

I agree that develoeprs may come from different cultures and
 contexts -- but humans have been herd animals ancestors since pre
 Homo Afarensis, and the ability to interact in a social group is a
 common trait amongst human tribes.

 Ian> I think writing them down will help.  I

Going down and writing  too musch simplitic detail loses the
 relevant content in a forest of inanity.

 Ian> also think it might produce some useful pressure on those people
 Ian> who ought to know better but lapse occasionally.  (And I'm not
 Ian> excluding myself here.)

 Ian> If you still disagree with me on this, I don't really see that I'm
 Ian> going to make much headway with addressing that point, because it's a
 Ian> fundamental part of the purpose and style of what I'm trying to
 Ian> achieve - ie, I don't think I'd do justice to your opinions even if I
 Ian> put aside my disagreement.

Since I do still disagree, I suspect that this shuts out most
 of my contribution to your document. 

 Ian> It's also really difficult to have a sensible conversation about these
 Ian> questions, because they are so subjective.

 Ian> I would say: does it really hurt so much to have a few platitudes, and
 Ian> some motherhood and apple pie ?  It seems that you're not actually
 Ian> disagreeing with what's said, but just saying that it shouldn't be
 Ian> said at all even though it's true - which seems strange to me.

It is a matter of presentation. A guide book on ettiquette
 needs to get the buy in of the people that are supposed to accept and
 follow it (unless it is meant to be rammed down the projects throat
 by fiat). And large tracts that irritate people (well, they irritate
 me, and I am projecting that I am not the only one), then the whole
 document stands in danger of being dismissed.

 Ian> My experience is that sensible conversations about eg bug
 Ian> reports can easily become derailed by categorical statements
 Ian> like that by the maintainer.  The results are often that the
 Ian> submitter just gets angry, and things go downhill from there.

Yes. But I contend that there are still situations where a
 categorical statement _is_ the only correct response -- and I do
 think that there are scenrarios where being up front an honest rather
 then equivocating in order not to ``hurt'' feeling is better. I am
 not advocating one needs be abrasive and in your face. 

Can we just tone down the paragraph, and state instead that in
 most cases, one should examine the issue with care before making
 categorical statements, since often categorical statements made in
 the heat of debate may lock one in an untenable position when tempers
 cool? 

 Ian> So, I strongly disagree - I think these comments are important, and
 Ian> the fact that you disagree with them shows that at least they're not
 Ian> content-free ...


The difference is mostly one of presentation, and how
 condescending the paragraph appears.  Reasonable people, current
 company included, have made similar errors. Talking down to them like
 they are social misfits rubs people the wrong way.


 >> > 6. Bug report etiquette

 Ian> I've run out of time for this in-detail writing now, but I'll deal
 Ian> with this section of your mail later.

manoj
-- 
 Trailing Edge Technologies is pleased to announce the following
 TETflame programme: For a negotiated price (no quatloos accepted) one
 of our flaming representatives will flame the living shit out of the
 poster of your choice. The price is inversly proportional to how much
 of an asshole the target it. We cannot be convinced to flame Dennis
 Ritchie. Matt Crawford flames are free.  For a negotiated price (same
 arrangement) the TETflame programme is offering ``flame
 insurence''. Under this arrangement, if one of our policy holders is
 flamed, we will cancel the offending article and flame the flamer, to
 a crisp.  The TETflame flaming representatives include: Richard
 Sexton, Oleg Kisalev, Diane Holt, Trish O'Tauma, Dave Hill, Greg
 Nowak and our most recent aquisition, Keith Doyle. But all he will do
 is put you in his kill file. Weemba by special arrangement.  Richard
 Sexton
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 Ian> Hamish Moffatt writes ("Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft 
#4"):
 >> This seems to imply that only developers submit bugs. Although your
 >> document is specifically about communications between developers,
 >> developers also interact with users particularly through the BTS.
 >> Therefore I suggest generalising the last sentence to both parties
 >> rather than both developers.

 Ian> In an earlier message, in a reply to a similar point by Manoj, I said:

 Ian>   I do think we have to place developers in a privileged position.  This
 Ian>   isn't really because they're necessarily better than nondevelopers,
 Ian>   but because we have (or should have!) in the project other ways of
 Ian>   dealing with developers who persistently submit junk bugs and engage
 Ian>   in other kinds of unhelpful activity.

 Ian>   Writing a requirement that developers have to treat every junk bug
 Ian>   from a nondeveloper seriously may end up wasting a lot of people's
 Ian>   time.

 Ian> Do you disagree ?

I think I have a philosophical objection. Debian contributors
 record more in their ranks than just debian developers. There
 countless upstream authors that have helped me improve my packages,
 and they follow the Debian BTS for their code; I would place such a
 person higher than I would myself, or my fellow developers, when it
 came to a dispute about their code.

Debian is a community thatt requires the efforts of more than
 the thousand or so developers in our ranks, and we should acknowledge
 their contribution, and their status.

So, I am against a priori relegating non developers to an
 inferior position when it comes to our BTS conventions.

Acting on a preconceived notion of the class a person may
 belong to, rather than the merits of the persons position and
 viewpoint, is fundamentally flawed.

manoj
-- 
 Imagination is more important than knowledge. Albert Einstein
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: All vi and clone to be removed from unstable

[Duncan Findlay]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 09:38:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns  writes:

>   I see. So your implication is that merely by transposing the
>  words joint and draft the message gains legitimacy? And _you_ have
>  the gall to call _me_ an idiot? Jesus.
> 
>  Anthony> Why are you proposing to remove all the vi clones from the
>  Anthony> distribution anyway?  What possible reason could you have?
> 
>   Since they are not derived from the one true editor. Apart
>  from being a name calling moron, you have no humour gene.
> 
>  >> hoping I have made my point,
> 
>  Anthony> That you're an idiot? Well, yes.
> 
>   I can see just how well this conflict resolution document is
>  going to be.

I can now see just how important this conflict resolution document is
going to be.

-- 
Duncan Findlay

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 Ian> As you can see, in this message I'm following your example more
 Ian> closely.  All I need now is a productive person to flame, rather than
 Ian> an obstructive arsehole.  

Is this an advocated technique for conflict resolution that
 you are following now?

manoj
-- 
 Happiness is good health and a bad memory. Ingrid Bergman
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: All vi and clone to be removed from unstable

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns  writes:

 Anthony> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:34:11PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 >> This is a joint draft message from the release manager and
 >> Manoj Srivastava 

 Anthony> The phrase Ian used was "DRAFT joint message", implying that
 Anthony> it was a "draft of a (joint message)" open for review. Your
 Anthony> phrase is the opposite, implying that it's a "jointly
 Anthony> written (draft message)", which it isn't.

I see. So your implication is that merely by transposing the
 words joint and draft the message gains legitimacy? And _you_ have
 the gall to call _me_ an idiot? Jesus.

 Anthony> Why are you proposing to remove all the vi clones from the
 Anthony> distribution anyway?  What possible reason could you have?

Since they are not derived from the one true editor. Apart
 from being a name calling moron, you have no humour gene.

 >> hoping I have made my point,

 Anthony> That you're an idiot? Well, yes.

I can see just how well this conflict resolution document is
 going to be.

manoj
-- 
 The most dangerous food is wedding cake. American proverb
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: All vi and clone to be removed from unstable

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:34:11PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> This is a joint draft message from the release manager and
>   Manoj Srivastava 

The phrase Ian used was "DRAFT joint message", implying that it was a
"draft of a (joint message)" open for review. Your phrase is the opposite,
implying that it's a "jointly written (draft message)", which it isn't.

Why are you proposing to remove all the vi clones from the distribution
anyway?  What possible reason could you have?

>   hoping I have made my point,

That you're an idiot? Well, yes.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''


pgpX0nPfKdFXt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:54:54PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> That's the problem.  You keep saying it's *you* working on it.  If it's for
> Debian at large, then we *all* should work on it.  Stop being so ego centric.

``That's the problem. You keep saying *you're* working on the Bug Tracking
System. If it's for Debian at large, then we *all* should work on it. Stop
being so ego centric.''

That theory doesn't make any sense: people work on what they're interested
in working on, that's all. You can't make everyone be interested in
something, you can only do your best to make it as useful for everyone
as you can.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Ian Jackson]

Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document 
draft  with me"):
> Well, I did respond to your original draft privately providing encouragement
> about the creation of the document in general, and suggesting some changs.  

(Looking it up again ...) the point you made in your earlier message
made the point about nondevelopers submitting bug reports.  This one
seems to be becoming a FAQ.  See my reply to Hamish Moffatt, saying
just the same thing just now.

I suppose I could make the change you (and others) suggest:

 Saying "both Developers" implies that only developers file bug reports?  It
 might be better to change that to something like "both the submitter and
 maintainer" ??

Perhaps it's sufficient to let the fact that the document is about
disputes between developers carry the particular point about putative
useless bug reports by nondevelopers ?

Ian.

Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4

[Ian Jackson]

Hamish Moffatt writes ("Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4"):
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 03:09:53AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 6. Bug report etiquette
> [...]
> > * [...]  The matter should be debated until both Developers are
> > happy.
> 
> This seems to imply that only developers submit bugs. Although your
> document is specifically about communications between developers,
> developers also interact with users particularly through the BTS.
> Therefore I suggest generalising the last sentence to both parties
> rather than both developers.

In an earlier message, in a reply to a similar point by Manoj, I said:

  I do think we have to place developers in a privileged position.  This
  isn't really because they're necessarily better than nondevelopers,
  but because we have (or should have!) in the project other ways of
  dealing with developers who persistently submit junk bugs and engage
  in other kinds of unhelpful activity.

  Writing a requirement that developers have to treat every junk bug
  from a nondeveloper seriously may end up wasting a lot of people's
  time.

  That's not to say that I think that developers ought to make a habit
  of dismissing nondevelopers' bug reports.  I think that would be bad.
  I just don't want to make a rule forbidding it.

  Of course in most cases people won't bother looking to see whether
  someone is a developer - with anything but the most obvious abuse
  it'll be much easier just to take things at face value.  So
  nondevelopers will probably get the benefit of any courtesy
  recommendation anyway.

Do you disagree ?

Of course one possibility is to put this text in the document itself,
but I think that would be bad - it might make it seem it was a good
thing for developers to act badly when dealing with nondevelopers.

Ian.

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Ian Jackson]

Adam Heath writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document 
draft with  me"):
> That's the problem.  You keep saying it's *you* working on it.  If
> it's for Debian at large, then we *all* should work on it.  Stop
> being so ego centric.

I'm terribly sorry that I'm being ego centric by actually _doing_
something.  It would be much better if I could spend all my time
whining and making difficulties and flameage for useful people.

As you can see, in this message I'm following your example more
closely.  All I need now is a productive person to flame, rather than
an obstructive arsehole.  Unfortunately for this plan, no-one but me
has written up any kind of concrete proposal at all or volunteered to
do the editing.  Perhaps I should start by making a few personal
attacks on those people who have offered constructive criticism.

Ian.

Bug#168122: project: alsa-xmms

[Torsten]

Package: project
Version: N/A; reported 2002-11-07
Severity: wishlist

Hello,

I wonder why the package alsa-xmms isn't called xmms-alsa. The only use for 
this package is to run together with xmms. Many users are only looking in the 
first time to ^xmms* and so they don't see it.
Shouldn't this package renamed to xmms-alsa?

Torsten

-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux b5 2.4.19 #8 Don Nov 7 00:18:00 CET 2002 i686
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Andrew Suffield]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:18:58PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 06:37:29PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > People who take things personally are not going to behave in a rational
> > manner, and some people just aren't rational; Debian has an ample supply
> > of both. People who are acting rationally can sort things out on their
> > own, without needing guidelines.
> 
> What about people who don't quite fit into either of these stereotypes,
> but instead incorporate characteristics of each?

I have yet to observe such behaviour within Debian. But I'm not hugely
interested in arguing the case (it wouldn't bother me at all if other
people think their is some value to such a document and write one,
it's only a set of guidelines), I was just stating a viewpoint in case
people found it interesting.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
 `. `'  | Imperial College,
   `- -><-  | London, UK


pgpPu9y9TvhYt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Adam Heath]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Ian Jackson wrote:

> Perhaps I can help.
>
> It seems that, despite marking my document DRAFT etc., I've offended
> some people by in their view giving the impression that the document
> is currently anything more than something I'm working on - with
> people's help, of course, but not necessarily their approval.

That's the problem.  You keep saying it's *you* working on it.  If it's for
Debian at large, then we *all* should work on it.  Stop being so ego centric.

Do you not think the rest of the Debian populace can think for themselves, and
can come to an agreement?  Or do you think that the ctte needs to do the
thinking for everyone else?

> So, I apologise for giving that mistaken impression.  I'd appreciate
> it if that apology could be accepted so that we can get on with
> talking about what's really important - the substantive content.

This is still not an apology.

> Would it help if I put `DRAFT PROPOSED' at the top of my next draft
> instead of just `DRAFT' ?  Would that make it clear that there is not
> (yet, anyway) any formal approval from anyone but me ?

Proprosed is more official than just draft.

Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4

[Adam Heath]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Ian Jackson wrote:

> I think you must have a different experience to me.  I've found that
> many developers don't seem to share enough of the context and unspoken
> rules.  I think writing them down will help.  I also think it might
> produce some useful pressure on those people who ought to know better
> but lapse occasionally.  (And I'm not excluding myself here.)

Ok, let's go with that idea then.  That most developers do not share a common
background, or a common upbringing.  That means that each developer will
interact differently to each situation.

So, now you come along, and want to write a document that describes best how
to interact.  Well, from what I have seen, you have gave this document your
own personal spin, have not been willing to let the whole populace at large
offer critiques, and when critiques do come, you selectively ignore those that
to not fit in with your own view points on the issue.

If this document is to be truly cross-civilization compatible, then all such
civilizations involved *must* be given complete involvment.  Ie, let
*everyone* have their say, and become completely impartial.

>From what I have seen from you, this has not been the case.

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Ian Jackson]

Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document 
draft  with me"):
> Well, I did respond to your original draft privately providing encouragement
> about the creation of the document in general, and suggesting some changs.  

I've just gone back through my email archives and indeed, there is
your mail.  I seem to have overlooked it.

> Did that message not reach you, or are you just annoyed that I haven't had 
> anything particularly useful to inject into the conversation since then?

No, I've overlooked your mail somehow.  I apologise for implying you
were ignoring me.

I've run out of time now; I'll produce a better answer later.

Thanks,
Ian.

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Ian Jackson]

Raul Miller writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document 
draft with me"):
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:09:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I think that would be wrong, to imply that a bunch of people
> >  had signed on to the draft document without asking them
> 
> I think a lot of the heatedness in this discussion is a reaction to
> implications rather than a reaction to concretely expressed ideas.

Perhaps I can help.

It seems that, despite marking my document DRAFT etc., I've offended
some people by in their view giving the impression that the document
is currently anything more than something I'm working on - with
people's help, of course, but not necessarily their approval.

So, I apologise for giving that mistaken impression.  I'd appreciate
it if that apology could be accepted so that we can get on with
talking about what's really important - the substantive content.

Would it help if I put `DRAFT PROPOSED' at the top of my next draft
instead of just `DRAFT' ?  Would that make it clear that there is not
(yet, anyway) any formal approval from anyone but me ?

Ian.

All vi and clone to be removed from unstable

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,

This is a joint draft message from the release manager and
  Manoj Srivastava 

Of course it is not, really. I would hope that all right
 minded people would agree and sign on to the holy task of eradicating
 all non emacs editors from the face of the planet.

But, according to aj, this is perfectly fine for me to say
 that is is a joint message from the RM, and it is no big deal.

 aj> For comparison, when someone proposes a general resolution, it
 aj> takes the form "The Debian Project resolves to...", even before
 aj> everyone in the project has had any chance to comment at all, let
 aj> alone agree. The group that's going to issue a
 aj> recommendation/whatever and the authors aren't necessarily one
 aj> and the same.

hoping I have made my point,

manoj
-- 
 I would be batting the big feller if they wasn't ready with the other
 one, but a left-hander would be the thing if they wouldn't have
 knowed it already because there is more things involved than could
 come up on the road, even after we've been home a long while. Casey
 Stengel
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4

[Ian Jackson]

Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4"):
> Well, here is a detailed critique. Unfortunately, there is a
>  lot of ground to cover between our positions; here is a start.

Thanks.

Much of what you say can be summed up, I think, by the sentiments from
these comments:

>   Well, belabouring the obvious, I would think, we are all
>  supposed to be well nigh adults here. But let us see how this goes.
...
>   We do not need a document for 5 year olds; we need a document
>  that is helpful when adults, who generally know a modicum of the
>  tenets of social behaviour, are locked in a dispute.
...
>   I suggest we get rid of the teaching pre schooler bits of
>  aphorism, and get on with information that developers can use.

I think you must have a different experience to me.  I've found that
many developers don't seem to share enough of the context and unspoken
rules.  I think writing them down will help.  I also think it might
produce some useful pressure on those people who ought to know better
but lapse occasionally.  (And I'm not excluding myself here.)

If you still disagree with me on this, I don't really see that I'm
going to make much headway with addressing that point, because it's a
fundamental part of the purpose and style of what I'm trying to
achieve - ie, I don't think I'd do justice to your opinions even if I
put aside my disagreement.

It's also really difficult to have a sensible conversation about these
questions, because they are so subjective.

I would say: does it really hurt so much to have a few platitudes, and
some motherhood and apple pie ?  It seems that you're not actually
disagreeing with what's said, but just saying that it shouldn't be
said at all even though it's true - which seems strange to me.

> > The Project has many rules and conventions, [etc]
> 
>   Verbose. 

Yes, I'm afraid it is.

But, you also make a number of very helpful comments, which I shan't
quote in detail because I think you're largely right.  I've made some
changes to my working draft, including taking some of your text.  The
resulting section 4 is at the bottom of my mail.  What do you think of
it ?


> > Be flexible; try to avoid categorical statements such as `I will never
> > implement that'.  There is no shame in being convinced, by good
> > arguments, to change your mind, even if you have just been vigorously
> > promoting the opposite view !
> 
>   There are things I shall never implement, and I am not going
>  to muzzle myself. Usually, there are good solid reasons for my
>  statements. (I shall never include a remote root exploit into my
>  code). 

My experience is that sensible conversations about eg bug reports can
easily become derailed by categorical statements like that by the
maintainer.  The results are often that the submitter just gets angry,
and things go downhill from there.

So, I strongly disagree - I think these comments are important, and
the fact that you disagree with them shows that at least they're not
content-free ...

> > 6. Bug report etiquette

I've run out of time for this in-detail writing now, but I'll deal
with this section of your mail later.

Ian.

 4. Procedural mistakes and disagreements

 The Project has many rules and conventions, written and unwritten,
 about when certain actions are appropriate and are inappropriate.  For
 example, sending a non-maintainer-upload of another Developer's
 package, closing and reopening a bug report, and forwarding mail from
 one place to another, are all sometimes appropriate but sometimes not.

 If you feel another Developer has erred, by failing to go about things
 in the right way, you should of course tell them about it.  But,
 please try to make your message helpful and friendly.  Probably they
 didn't know about the rule in question, or understand it differently -
 do not assume that the error was deliberate.

 If you can, refer the other Developer to some documentation explaining
 what the right process is.  If such documentation does not exist,
 consider writing it - it is difficult for nonexistent documentation to
 be authoritative, and a misunderstanding that arises once in the
 absence of a documented procedure is likely to arise again.  The
 Debian Developers' Reference is usually an excellent place to document
 common practice.

 Often, the Project's rules are not absolute, and context is important,
 so be prepared to explain the rationale, explain why the rule applies
 in the particular case, and/or point out precedents.

 If the other Developer still disagrees, you should seek guidance from
 the wider Project.  For example, start a discussion on the merits of
 the rule or practice; often, it may be that the rule or practice needs
 to be amended.  The result may be a better documented rule with a good
 rationale, that may prevent such a disagreement in the future.

 In the end, if no decision can be reached by consensus and a firm
 decision needs to be mad

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Raul Miller]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 06:37:29PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> People who take things personally are not going to behave in a rational
> manner, and some people just aren't rational; Debian has an ample supply
> of both. People who are acting rationally can sort things out on their
> own, without needing guidelines.

What about people who don't quite fit into either of these stereotypes,
but instead incorporate characteristics of each?

-- 
Raul

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Andrew Suffield]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 12:01:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 11:38:39AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 02:03:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Maybe a GR really is the best way to go; we may find out that we can't
> > > even muster quorum on the issue, and that Ian, Manoj, and I have all
> > > inflated notions of the importance of this issue.  Maybe most developers
> > > are willing to put up with the flamewars we have.
> > 
> > I think it's an exercise in futility, does that count?
> > 
> > It's a game that fails if any of the players don't play fair, or take
> > things personally.
> 
> To what are you referring?  Debian flamewars in general, or Ian's draft?
> 
> (Or both? :) )

I was thinking about the notion of such a document, but I guess it
does apply to both.

Flamewars are pretty much inevitable within a group like Debian; I
don't see this helping matters any. People who take things personally
are not going to behave in a rational manner, and some people just
aren't rational; Debian has an ample supply of both. People who are
acting rationally can sort things out on their own, without needing
guidelines.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
 `. `'  | Imperial College,
   `- -><-  | London, UK


pgpHILdT0ygFv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Raul Miller]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:09:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>   I think that would be wrong, to imply that a bunch of people
>  had signed on to the draft document without asking them

I think a lot of the heatedness in this discussion is a reaction to
implications rather than a reaction to concretely expressed ideas.

I'm not sure how best to address that.

>  Raul> I think, however, that much of the disagreeing is a result of Branden's
>  Raul> politicing.
> 
>   That is an insult. I am rarely swayed by Brandon's posturing,
>  grand and picturesque though it often is. I can take umbrage
>  by my own self as well.

I apologize for the insult I've delivered to you and Branden -- I
apologize both for any concretely expressed insult and all implied
insults.

>   I suggest you actually read up on the issue before joining the
>  discussion? I'll hold comment until you have caught up and are in a
>  better position to know what you are talkijng about.

I'll leave this to the rest of you.  I really need to get around to that
revised draft of the voting amendment.  Maybe once I've completed that
I'll sit back and try to digest this discussion further.

Thanks,

-- 
Raul

diff between Ian Jackson's Disputes Draft 3 and Draft 4

[Branden Robinson]

A unified diff of the changes Ian made to reflect people's feedback on
draft 3 of his proposed disputes resolution document is MIME-attached.

The changes appear to be:

+ changes to the list of parties of whom the document claims to be
  representative;
+ stylistic alterations to the paragraph on authoritative documentation

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| If God had intended for man to go
Debian GNU/Linux   | about naked, we would have been
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | born that way.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
--- iwj_draft3  2002-11-06 12:08:06.0 -0500
+++ iwj_draft4  2002-11-06 12:07:59.0 -0500
@@ -1,8 +1,6 @@
DISPUTES BETWEEN DEVELOPERS
 
-A *DRAFT* joint recommendation of the the Technical Committee, the
-Project Leader and the Bug Tracking System Administrators.
-
+A *DRAFT* recommendation by the Technical Committee. 
 
 1. Motivation
 
@@ -84,13 +82,13 @@
 please try to make your message helpful and friendly.  Probably they
 didn't know about the rule in question, or understand it differently.
 
-If you can, refer the other Developer to some documentation saying
-when they should and should not do something, do so.  If such
-documentation does not exist, consider writing it - it is difficult for
-nonexistent documentation to be authoritative, and a misunderstanding
-that arises once in the absence of a documented procedure is likely to
-arise again.  The Debian Developers' Reference is usually an excellent
-place to document common practice.
+If you can, refer the other Developer to some documentation explaining
+what the right process is.  If such documentation does not exist,
+consider writing it - it is difficult for nonexistent documentation to
+be authoritative, and a misunderstanding that arises once in the
+absence of a documented procedure is likely to arise again.  The
+Debian Developers' Reference is usually an excellent place to document
+common practice.
 
 If the other Developer disagrees, you should seek guidance from the
 wider Project, so that everyone has the same ideas of how things are


pgp0jqxHTu3Nz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 11:38:39AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 02:03:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Maybe a GR really is the best way to go; we may find out that we can't
> > even muster quorum on the issue, and that Ian, Manoj, and I have all
> > inflated notions of the importance of this issue.  Maybe most developers
> > are willing to put up with the flamewars we have.
> 
> I think it's an exercise in futility, does that count?
> 
> It's a game that fails if any of the players don't play fair, or take
> things personally.

To what are you referring?  Debian flamewars in general, or Ian's draft?

(Or both? :) )

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Organized religion is a sham and a
Debian GNU/Linux   | crutch for weak-minded people who
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | need strength in numbers.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Jesse Ventura


pgpov2pkz6Mhe.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Arto Jantunen]

Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm going to digress here somewhat on the `lurkers support me in
> email' question:
>
> As I said earlier the private mail I've received has convinced me that
> I do have support for what I'm trying to do.  I don't expect my
> opponents (or indeed anyone else) to necessarily believe me, but it
> does mean that to me arguments of the form `see how Branden and Manoj
> dislike your ideas, you must be on your own' are unconvincing.
>
> If there are people out there apart from Branden and Manoj who
> disagree with me about anything to do with this document (or indeed
> about anything at all in Debian!), I'd like to encourage them to mail
> me about it.  I promise to do my best to reply constructively.
>
> If I get the impression that I don't have the support I currently
> think I have you can be sure I won't press ahead, if only because
> getting trounced in a vote would leave me with egg on my face.
>
> Likewise, I'd like to encourage anyone who agrees with me and wants me
> to press on, and who hasn't already told me so, to mail me too.  I'd
> appreciate the additional moral support.

I don't have the time to get into this discussion, but so that you
can't claim that everyone but Branden, Manoj and Adam support you,
I'll say that I don't.

-- 
Arto Jantunen

Re: debian cd-image mirrors and US export restrictions

[Josip Rodin]

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 11:32:15PM +0100, Harald K. wrote:
> The hundred of  mirrors containing the debian packages are clearly
> separated into those, which are located in the US, and those, which are
> not, because of the non-us tree, they are containing packages from. In
> contrast to the package servers, the debian cd image mirrors are not
> separated according to this circumstances. Also the ones located in the US
> are containing the non-us variant of the first iso image. I dont
> understand why the US exports regulations seems to have no influence on
> the distributing of the cd images, which contain US sensitive software
> packages. If anyone has an idea on this topic, I would be gratefull for
> any remark.

The regulations certainly still apply. We differentiate them with fairly
obvious difference in the file names: the first CD image that has non-US
stuff has "_NONUS" in the name, so it's easy to rsync --exclude="*_NONUS*"
when mirroring them.

Also, the debian/ vs. debian-non-US/ split much predates this special non-US
CD image, which was made in the modern times, when the export regulations
for non-US/main software are being lifted, so nobody wanted to do any
more effort to split these two.

-- 
 2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Re: debian cd-image mirrors and US export restrictions

[Harald K .]

Am Mittwoch,  6. November 2002 04:13 schrieb Peter Palfrader:
> On Tue, 05 Nov 2002, Andrew Lau wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 11:32:15PM +0100, Harald K. wrote:
> > > In contrast to the package servers, the debian cd image mirrors are
> > > not separated according to this circumstances. Also the ones located
> > > in the US are containing the non-us variant of the first iso
> > > image. I dont understand why the US exports regulations seems to
> > > have no influence on the distributing of the cd images, which
> > > contain US sensitive software packages.  If anyone has an idea on
> > > this topic, I would be gratefull for any remark.
> >
> > Since last year, the US export restrictions have been lifted
>
> Andrea, I think the OP's was asking why US mirrors offer the non-US ISO
> image for download.
>
> Harald, did I misunderstand you?
>
>   yours,
>   peter

Hi Peter,

no you didn't misunderstand me. 
Indeed, this was the question I hoped to get answered,
but the things Andrew told me, have also helped to solve the problem I had, 
but from another more backgrond point of view. But of course I would be glad, 
if someone could tell me, why some of the US based mirrors found on 
http://www.debian.org/CD/http-ftp/
offer the non-US ISO image, thought they theoretically were not allowed to do 
so, at least before the law in the US was changed. So I wonder, if the debian 
project could be made responsible for refering to these mirrors.


Regards,

Harald

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 02:03:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Maybe a GR really is the best way to go; we may find out that we can't
> even muster quorum on the issue, and that Ian, Manoj, and I have all
> inflated notions of the importance of this issue.  Maybe most developers
> are willing to put up with the flamewars we have.

I think it's an exercise in futility, does that count?

It's a game that fails if any of the players don't play fair, or take
things personally.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
 `. `'  | Imperial College,
   `- -><-  | London, UK

Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 03:09:53AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 6. Bug report etiquette

[...]

> * The bug was reported; the maintainer felt immediately that it was a
> spurious bug report of some kind, and closed it, but the submitter
> disagrees with the explanation and has reopened the report for
> discussion.  The matter should be debated until both Developers are
> happy.

This seems to imply that only developers submit bugs. Although your
document is specifically about communications between developers,
developers also interact with users particularly through the BTS.
Therefore I suggest generalising the last sentence to both parties
rather than both developers.


Thanks,
Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 03:00:18AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>   Is the number of things one is permitted to be concerned about
>  a 0 sum game now?

*shrug* I just don't think this is worth getting all hyped up about.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''


pgpMADWQjOD9r.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns  writes:

 Anthony> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:52:47AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 >> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns  writes:
 >> When I read a draft with a bunch of co-authors names on the
 >> authors list, I do tend to assume that the co-authors have signed on
 >> to the document.

 Anthony> *shrug* Your assumption was wrong: both in that people
 Anthony> hadn't signed on, and in that it was never meant to be taken
 Anthony> that way.

Sorry , you have no idea what you are talking about. The first
 the document saw the light of day was on project; no one had signed
 on to it.

Secondly, you seem bent on ignoring the effect of having
 influential people on your proposal; there is a definite impact on
 the reader; and in this case I think it was a misrepresntation. 

 Anthony> For comparison, when someone proposes a general resolution,
 Anthony> it takes the form "The Debian Project resolves to...", even
 Anthony> before everyone in the project has had any chance to comment
 Anthony> at all, let alone agree. The group that's going to issue a
 Anthony> recommendation/whatever and the authors aren't necessarily
 Anthony> one and the same.

To point out the glaring flaw in the above argument; the
 proposal is submitted to the membership at large; it is perfectly
 reasonable to have that preamble: we know we have not yet agreed to
 it.

Had this draft been presented to the tech ctte first, it would
 not have been a misreprestnation: The ctte knows well it was not
 asked yet.


 Anthony> I'm not sure why you're making such a big deal over this;
 Anthony> it's not like it was posted to -announce, or claimed it was
 Anthony> in any way official, or, well, anything. It was a draft:
 Anthony> working out the appropriate group to issue it is up for
 Anthony> comment just as much as anything else in it.

Becaue I feel calling it a joint representation by a bunch of
 people who were not even aware of the document is dishonest. Even if
 it was a draft document, presenting it to the world with the implied
 imprimatur of people who were not even aware of the existence of this
 document is wrong.

 Anthony> There're plenty of things that're worth getting hysterical
 Anthony> about (eg, that we have 20,000 open bugs), surely confusion
 Anthony> over the authorship of some draft guidelines isn't one of
 Anthony> them?

Is the number of things one is permitted to be concerned about
 a 0 sum game now? I can no longer be concerned about something since
 I have used up my quota? I understand as RM you are trying to move
 the bugs into a closed stare, but this is the weirdest argument I
 have heard in a while.

manoj

-- 
 user, n.: The word computer professionals use when they mean "idiot."
 Dave Barry, "Claw Your Way to the Top" [I always thought "computer
 professional" was the phrase hackers used when they meant "idiot."
 Ed.]
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:52:47AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns  writes:
>   When I read a draft with a bunch of co-authors names on the
>  authors list, I do tend to assume that the co-authors have signed on
>  to the document.

*shrug* Your assumption was wrong: both in that people hadn't signed on,
and in that it was never meant to be taken that way.

For comparison, when someone proposes a general resolution, it takes
the form "The Debian Project resolves to...", even before everyone in
the project has had any chance to comment at all, let alone agree. The
group that's going to issue a recommendation/whatever and the authors
aren't necessarily one and the same.

I'm not sure why you're making such a big deal over this; it's not like
it was posted to -announce, or claimed it was in any way official, or,
well, anything. It was a draft: working out the appropriate group to
issue it is up for comment just as much as anything else in it.

There're plenty of things that're worth getting hysterical about (eg,
that we have 20,000 open bugs), surely confusion over the authorship of
some draft guidelines isn't one of them?

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''


pgpuyT5IwEo45.pgp
Description: PGP signature

finding a consensus (was: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me)

[Andreas Schuldei]

i think in the present situation (both sides getting really
worked up on the topic, it became a personal issue, the
discussion starts being about beeing right and no longer about
finding a solution) it would make sense to let someone else take
over the draft and integrate suggestions.

I propose bdale, who as the DPL should be respected by all and
has plenty of live experience, and given he is married and
has children, also knowledgs about resolution of disputes.

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns  writes:

 Anthony> On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:09:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 Raul> Yes, of course you can.
 >> I think that would be wrong, to imply that a bunch of people
 >> had signed on to the draft document without asking them

 Anthony> I don't think Ian implied that at all, for reference. If he did, I'm
 Anthony> certain he didn't intend to, so I don't think it's worth getting all
 Anthony> riled up over.

When I read a draft with a bunch of co-authors names on the
 authors list, I do tend to assume that the co-authors have signed on
 to the document. Man, the publications I could get by having a few
 noble laureates named as the being the joint authors on my
 publication.

This is a definite attempt at misrepresenting the people who
 have signed on; despite your efforts at pouring oil over troubled
 waters.

manoj
quaking in his shoes over the disagreement
-- 
 A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by
 blowing first.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:43:28AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> And, loud as you and Branden are,

In what way have I been "loud"?  You have complained several times about
my messages but have not given me any prescriptive advice for how better
to communicate with you, unless one counts the implicit advice not to
bother at all, given that you're "trying to ignore" me.[1]  You've
complained about things that you perceive "between the lines of my
messages"[ibid.], but you've cited no examples whatsoever.  Your
complaint is indistinguishable from that of a person who simply wants to
ignore a person for ulterior motives, but since I'm confident that's not
the case here, you surely must have some foundations for your belief
that you can articulate.

[1] http://people.debian.org/~branden/iwj_disputes_draft_dispute

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Religion is regarded by the common
Debian GNU/Linux   |people as true, by the wise as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |false, and by the rulers as useful.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca


pgp5yZvAHajX7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Branden Robinson]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 05:37:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I think, however, that much of the disagreeing is a result of Branden's
> politicing.

In what way have I been politicking?

I made a number of suggestions in response Ian's first proposed draft --
some of which he incoporated, some he rejected, and others which he
disregarded entirely.

On multiple occasions I explicitly thanked him for undertaking this
effort and expressed my support of the intent of the document.[1][2][3]

> Personally, I haven't seen anything too outrageous in Branden's
> objections either [other than a tendency for Branden to pounce on
> Ian's statements of preference about how he'd like to conduct this
> discussion as if they're they're heavy-weight MUST/MUST NOT
> statements].

Ian stated pretty categorically that he wasn't going to listen to me
anymore.[4]

> Which means I've probably not been paying enough attention.

That you "haven't seen anything too outrageous in Branden's objections
either...means [you've] probably not been paying enough attention."?

Isn't that the sort of personal attack ("if I can't find something
outrageous in what Branden said, I must not be looking hard enough")
that Ian's draft urges us to avoid?

> If it's a social issue, mechanisms probably are not the answer.

I'm not sure I agree; one definition of etiquette is an arrangement of
(largely arbitrary) mechanisms designed to smooth social interactions.

> Actually, that's a valid approach -- if you can't figure out what the
> problems are, press on, get more objections, and analyze those objections
> as well.

True, but I'd suggest that it may not be the best approach when one of
the participants says thinks like "I'm going to protect my sanity (I
mean that quite literally) by trying to ignore you".[4]

> Personally, I think it's clear that Branden is upset.

Not particularly.  I little surprised at some of the turns of events,
but the U.S. election has me much more distressed than this document
does.  I've been quite happily hacking on xdm the past few evenings, so
this business can't have been disrupting my life *too* much.  :)

> Personally, I'm not clear on what Branden is upset about,

Isn't it a little hasty to conclude that someone's upset if you can't
even tell what they're upset about?  Where in my messages can you find
profanities, screaming capital letters, and personal attacks that would,
for practically anyone, be generally reliable indicia of a state of
agitation even in the absence of a clear cause?

Isn't it it possible that you're just *assuming* I'm upset?  (I am
working under the assumption that it is possible to disagree with parts
of Ian's draft without that fact by definition making me "upset", but if
that's what it means to you, please let me know.)

> Maybe I should spend some time figuring what the conflicting goals
> are, here?  Or perhaps someone else could concisely explain them?

As the author of the document, it might be educational if Ian were to
offer us some insight into some specific long-term factors that have
prompted him to feel the need to draft this document, as well as some
specific short-term recent developments that may have prompted him to
feel that now is a good time to pursue the matter.

> > We nee4d to have a decent document, with input from more than
> >  one person, to present to a GR. I note that you have ignored most of
> >  the people with concrete concerns that have actually posted here. 
> 
> Hmm.. I recall a part of this exchange where Branden objected that one
> of his proposed changes had not been included.  And then he apologized
> for overlooking this change.  That indicates to me that this statement
> of yours can't be completely true.

I don't see how.

Manoj said "I note that you have ignored most of the people with
concrete concerns that have actually posted here."

Ian is on the record that he'll be trying to ignore me.  There are
other people who have raised issues that Ian has not, apparently,
addressed yet[5][6][7].

In short, you're talking about issues, and Manoj is talking about
people.

As an aside, would you have preferred I not have apologized for my
oversight?  If I hadn't, would that have been evidence for or against
your accusation that I am "politicking"?

[1] 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200210/msg00061.html
[2] 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200210/msg00066.html
[3] 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200210/msg00107.html
[4] http://people.debian.org/~branden/iwj_disputes_draft_dispute
[5] 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200211/msg00064.html
[6] 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200210/msg00104.html
[7] 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200211/msg00068.html

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|I've made up my mind.  Don't try to
Debian GNU/Linux   |confuse me with the fa

Re: Disputes document - metaflameage

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 03:04:02AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Branden [...] > have been telling us at length how high-handed and
> undemocratic and otherwise evil I am

This assertion is without foundation.  I have made no such claim.

> Branden [...] can complain [...] that
> obviously I'm being arrogant and cabalish

This assertion is without foundation.  I have made no such claim.

> (and even, in Branden's case, declining to deal with any
> more of his dysfunctional flameage)

Another assertion without foundation.  Where did I flame you?

I'd humbly like to suggest that putting words into the mouths of others
is not the best way to enhance the appeal of one's own position -- at
least, not if one holds as valuable the goals stated in the draft.

> Shock horror, I even admit to being swayed by private email !

The question I raised was, "should anyone *else* be swayed by private
mail to *you*?"[1]

> But, it's not their decision.  It's currently my draft, and I'll put
> what I like in it.

In that case, stating that it's from the Technical Committee may be
premature.

> Very little has been said about the actual substantive content of the
> document at all.

Quite a bit has been said.  That some feedback has been of the nature of
grammatical corrections does not mean that other feedback hasn't been
raised.  In addition to Manoj, Adam Heath, and myself, Scott Dier and
Duncan Findlay have raised points about the substantive content.

> We've had a few exchanges, but nothing like the vigourous discussion
> that there ought to be if there are real differences over what should
> be in it.

There are real differences over what should be in it.  More than once
the issues of whether your draft suggests the right course of action vis
a vis closing vs. reopening bug reports, and whether it is ideal to
leave out a discussion of bug severities have been raised.

You have not, as far as I can tell, substantively rebutted these points,
even when they were raised by people other than Manoj or myself.[2]

> The bulk of the conversation has turned into a meta-flamewar, which
> just leads to the participants getting angry.

I have done no flaming.  I have expressed disappointment in the
employment (in one instance!) of fallacious reasoning, but I have't
raised my voice about it, called anyone names, or accused anyone of any
failures of character.

> So, Manoj and Branden - and anyone else: if you are serious about your
> disagreements about the _content_ of this document, rather than just
> wanting to play politics about how it gets written, would you please
> try to participate in a constructive way ?

I have done so.  Your consistent response to my discussions of your
draft have, of late, been essentially this:

I'm not going to reply to the rest of your mail, because I think
it'll just generate heat and not light.[3]

> If you disagree totally with my tone, for example, you could write
> your own version and we could see which one got more support, or try
> to find compromises.  If you disagree with individual points, then we
> should try to argue them out, and if we can't agree then eventually
> someone will end up voting.

I have attempted the latter, but there are certain points you seem to be
unwilling to discuss at all.  Duncan Findlay's recent mail identified
some of these.[4]

> If you think the thing should be a GR rather than a resolution of the
> tech ctte, then write up your alternative version and when you're
> happy it's as good as you're going to get you can propose it and we
> can all vote.  (I think it's a daft idea to do it as a GR, as I say,
> but I'm not stopping you.)

The GR mechanism does have the advantage of being a well-defined
alternative mechanism for resolving this problem, if your approach is
insufficient to generate consensus.

> If noone comments substantively on my next draft, which I'm about to
> put together and post, then I'll assume that there's nothing much that
> can be done to improve it, and I'll just go back to the tech ctte and
> see if they want to vote in favour of it.

I would suggest that you address the points you've left undiscussed to
date before concluding that no one has commented substantively.[4][5][6]

[1] http://people.debian.org/~branden/iwj_disputes_draft_dispute
[2] 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200210/msg00104.html
[3] 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200211/msg00052.html
[4] 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200211/msg00064.html
[5] 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200210/msg00104.html
[6] 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2002/debian-project-200211/msg00068.html

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny
Debian GNU/Linux   |that reading it will cause an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |aneurysm.  This is not that .sig.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpAZwvA

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:09:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>  Raul> Yes, of course you can.
>   I think that would be wrong, to imply that a bunch of people
>  had signed on to the draft document without asking them

I don't think Ian implied that at all, for reference. If he did, I'm
certain he didn't intend to, so I don't think it's worth getting all
riled up over.

Cheers,
aj, wondering if he should pull his "Remember to breath" .sig out of his
closet

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''