Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

[Gunnar Wolf]

gregor herrmann dijo [Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:00:33PM +0100]:
> > That's good, the desire to have it public does not equate to a desire or
> > need for me to be there. IMO it's just important that this doesn't
> > happen behind closed doors again like last time.
> 
> AFAICS the process for DC20 and DC21 seems to be the same:
> - public review meetings for the bids
> - a private decision meeting of the committee
> 
> I'd be happy to learn that my impression about the planned procedure
> for the DC21 decision is wrong, I might easily have missed something.
> 
> Personally I much prefer public decisions.

FWIW, we are still pending to come to a conclusion regarding
DC21. This has been a tough process, and we will soon come to a
conclusion. Yes, I have been part of several prior DebConf
bid-choosing teams, and yes, sometimes the decisions are easier to get
to. Private (side-channel?) communication between committee/choosing
team members _always_ happens, but we have always tried to make the
reasoning available to the Debian community; this time it will not be
different.

Most probably, the results will be announced by mail (and not
communicated during a meeting), because the bid review process has led
us to need to decide in this way. I cannot speak for the previously
appointed DebConf Committee¹, but for the iteration I have been
delegated for, I can promise you we will not hide problems™ — That is,
once we choose, I can commit that we will not hide the reasoning
behind our choice. Some of it will not be full-public, as -of course-
it includes important human interaction bits, but all important points
will be made public.

¹ The fact that one of the Committee members left it, and is quite
  vocal on his opposition to the choice made by it, makes it clear to
  me that, even if the Committee had intended to keep quiet, the truth
  will come out. I'm sure Jonathan can comment on the decision process
  as he lived it. We don't have NDAs.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

[Russ Allbery]

Daniel Lange  writes:

> "active apartheid regime" is politically loaded lingo and shows where you
> stand.

This is another way of saying that it clearly communicates a political
point of view.  Perhaps that was the goal.  If one holds the position that
this is an inherently political decision (as Ian stated and which I also
agree with), stating an opposing political position is a reasonable part
of that conversation.

> Employing it disqualifies rational arguments, if you had any.

Why?  Rational is not the same thing as apolitical.  I object to reserving
"rational" for only political viewpoints that agree with the speaker's.

The Debian Project made, through its delegated processes and procedures, a
political decision to host DebConf in Israel.  That decision was made on
the basis of various good, well-intended, and entirely reasonable
arguments, including (quite significantly in my opinion) expressing
support of the project members from Israel regardless of one's opinion
about the actions of their government.  Speaking as someone who also lives
in a country whose last two national governments have taken numerous
actions I find reprehensible, I find that argument persuasive.

That decision was also opposed on the basis of good, well-intended, and
entirely reasonable arguments about the impact of Israeli government
policies, on the efficacy of boycott by analogy to other historical
struggles, and on moral arguments about what obligations the rest of the
world has towards oppressed peoples.  Obviously, those arguments also rest
on facts which are in dispute by multiple parties, but just as with the
arguments for holding DebConf in Israel, they are largely made in good
faith.

Both positions are *inherently* and *inescapably* political.  The Debian
Project is also not going to somehow reconcile those positions and arrive
at a consensus political agreement on a political problem that has
challenged the world's most adept diplomats for well over 70 years.

This discussion is unavoidably political, and there's no point in trying
to argue that we can or should leave politics out of it.  All positions
that one can take carry political ramifications.  We might prefer that the
project somehow manage to stay out of issues like this, but I'm afraid
that's not possible; both accepting and refusing to consider a bid for a
conference in Israel are political positions.  And whatever way the
project decides, it is certain that groups in the project will continue to
(strongly) hold the opposing view.

Politics is not a dirty word.  Politics is how large groups of humans
argue and coordinate.  It's inescapable among large groups of people.  All
we can do as a project is to decide what political positions we're willing
to take, how to mitigate the effects of those decisions where appropriate,
how to manage the effects of those decisions on members of the project who
disagree with them, and how to provide enough space in the project for
opposing views such that political positions that are not *intrinsic* to
the project cause as small of an impact on project unity as possible.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

[gregor herrmann]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:44:09 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:

> On 2020/02/18 21:15, Daniel Lange wrote:
> >> […] I think the current DebConf committee
> >> should strongly consider […]
> >> keep the bid decision public as it was in prior DebConfs.
> > We held public review meetings for the DC21 bids. You did not care to
> > show up for either of them.
> That's good, the desire to have it public does not equate to a desire or
> need for me to be there. IMO it's just important that this doesn't
> happen behind closed doors again like last time.

AFAICS the process for DC20 and DC21 seems to be the same:
- public review meetings for the bids
- a private decision meeting of the committee

I'd be happy to learn that my impression about the planned procedure
for the DC21 decision is wrong, I might easily have missed something.

Personally I much prefer public decisions.
 
Cheers,
gregor

-- 
 .''`.  https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
 : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D  85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
 `. `'  Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: Peter Ratzenbeck: Frosty & Cold


signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature

Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

[Jonathan Carter]

Hi Daniel

On 2020/02/18 21:15, Daniel Lange wrote:
>> I haven't publicly said this before, but I believe it was a big mistake:
>>
>>   * Not having a bid committee for that vote
>>   * Making it a private vote
>>   * Not announcing the the DCC would be the bid committee
>>     nor that it would be a private vote
> 
> You have been part of the DCC at the time, just sayin' in case you forgot.

Yep, I've said the privately in the DCC before, I'm not sure what you're
alluding to above.

>> I've brought these up in various private discussions before, and
>> unfortunately it's too late to change that decision without further,
>> possibly worse consequences, but I think the current DebConf committee
>> should strongly consider setting up a bid committee again (even if it
>> largely or mostly overlaps with the DCC, that might just be natural) and
>> keep the bid decision public as it was in prior DebConfs. I've seen
>> people express this on IRC before and I hope they speak up on more
>> formal channels too.
> 
> Translation: I did not get the result I wanted, so I'd like a "bid
> committee" next time in the hope that decisions will be more in line
> with my personal convictions.

Bad translation on your part.

> We held public review meetings for the DC21 bids. You did not care to
> show up for either of them.

That's good, the desire to have it public does not equate to a desire or
need for me to be there. IMO it's just important that this doesn't
happen behind closed doors again like last time.

>> On a purely personal note, I find it in rather poor taste to talk about
>> diversity in the context of having DC in a country with an active
>> apartheid regime.
> 
> Roberto gave you an answer to this already.
> 
> "active apartheid regime" is politically loaded lingo and shows where
> you stand.
> Employing it disqualifies rational arguments, if you had any.

It's really nothing controversial at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy, and if
you manage to find ambiguity in that, Netanyahu makes it very clear
where they stand on this matter:
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/11/702264118/netanyahu-says-israel-is-nation-state-of-the-jewish-people-and-them-alone

I'll leave it at that for tonight, I don't want to monopolize -project.
Feel free to take this further in private if you're sincere in
continuing a discussion about this.

-Jonathan
-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.

Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

[Jonathan Carter]

On 2020/02/18 20:31, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Right.  But choosing Brazil for a DebConf venue at a time when it did
> not even have national-level anti-discrimination protection for LGBT
> people[*] was done in good taste and was a victory for diversity?  Sure.

No one said or implied anything like that. Brazil was a whole different
kettle of fish and unfortunately things got even more complicated in the
country after the bid was accepted. In the case of Brazil I think it was
the right choice to go ahead with it, and I believe that it's the right
thing to do to support the DC20 team as well, regardless of where
someone stand about the host country. There's enough people who want to
attend and at this stage it would do more harm to cancel than to go
ahead, so imho the right thing to do is to help them where they need it,
and if you don't want to attend there, then the MiniDC a few weeks
before DC might be a good choice.

-Jonathan
-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.

Re: Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

[Daniel Lange]

Hi Jonathan


I haven't publicly said this before, but I believe it was a big mistake:

  * Not having a bid committee for that vote
  * Making it a private vote
  * Not announcing the the DCC would be the bid committee
nor that it would be a private vote


You have been part of the DCC at the time, just sayin' in case you forgot.


I've brought these up in various private discussions before, and
unfortunately it's too late to change that decision without further,
possibly worse consequences, but I think the current DebConf committee
should strongly consider setting up a bid committee again (even if it
largely or mostly overlaps with the DCC, that might just be natural) and
keep the bid decision public as it was in prior DebConfs. I've seen
people express this on IRC before and I hope they speak up on more
formal channels too.


Translation: I did not get the result I wanted, so I'd like a "bid 
committee" next time in the hope that decisions will be more in line 
with my personal convictions.


We held public review meetings for the DC21 bids. You did not care to 
show up for either of them.



On a purely personal note, I find it in rather poor taste to talk about
diversity in the context of having DC in a country with an active
apartheid regime.


Roberto gave you an answer to this already.

"active apartheid regime" is politically loaded lingo and shows where 
you stand.

Employing it disqualifies rational arguments, if you had any.

Daniel

Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 06:29:34PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> 
> On a purely personal note, I find it in rather poor taste to talk about
> diversity in the context of having DC in a country with an active
> apartheid regime.
> 
Right.  But choosing Brazil for a DebConf venue at a time when it did
not even have national-level anti-discrimination protection for LGBT
people[*] was done in good taste and was a victory for diversity?  Sure.

Regards,

-Roberto

[*] Such protections have since been enacted.

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

[Jonathan Carter]

Hey OdyX

On 2020/02/18 10:43, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>> I'm quite frustrated, disappointed and angry reading the above.
>>
>> I had expressed a fairly strong discomfort with the anti-DC20 messaging
>> I got from the original contact about Montreal.
> 
> To offer some contrast, although I can agree such introduction _could_ have 
> been left out of the announcement email, I find the phrasing to be honest, 
> transparent, and fair: it is not against Debian, not against DebConf, not 
> against the DebConf Committee. It is merely explaining in full sight their 
> reasons to a) not attend DebConf; b) organize that event at that time.
> 
> Specifically, I find the announcement OK _because_ the event dates do not 
> directly conflict with DebConf20's.

+1 to all of the above. If the dates were on or too close to DC20, I
would not want to attend or support this event in any way. Personally I
would leave the intro out too, but it is honest, and it's the reality.
Having a DebConf in Isreal is inherently political, you can shy way from
that fact or wish it away.

>> In particular, we as a project made a decision about where we were
>> holding DebConf 20.
> 
> I'd rephrase this as "the DebConf committee, as DPL delegates, made a 
> decision 
> about by whom DebConf20 was to be organized and where; this decision has not 
> been overriden by a GR" [0,1].  There's nuance away from "we as a project 
> made 
> a decision".

I haven't publicly said this before, but I believe it was a big mistake:

 * Not having a bid committee for that vote
 * Making it a private vote
 * Not announcing the the DCC would be the bid committee
   nor that it would be a private vote

I've brought these up in various private discussions before, and
unfortunately it's too late to change that decision without further,
possibly worse consequences, but I think the current DebConf committee
should strongly consider setting up a bid committee again (even if it
largely or mostly overlaps with the DCC, that might just be natural) and
keep the bid decision public as it was in prior DebConfs. I've seen
people express this on IRC before and I hope they speak up on more
formal channels too.

>> The above messaging  comes across as a condemnation of what the project
>> has decided to do, rather than something that supports our diversity and
>> compliments DC20 while supporting those who choose not to attend.

On a purely personal note, I find it in rather poor taste to talk about
diversity in the context of having DC in a country with an active
apartheid regime.

-Jonathan

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.

Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

[Steve McIntyre]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:43:53AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>Le lundi, 17 février 2020, 19.19:02 h CET Sam Hartman a écrit :
>> > "Jerome" == Jerome Charaoui  writes:
>> Jerome> Following the announcement of the DebConf20 location, our
>> Jerome> desire to participate became incompatible with our
>> Jerome> commitment toward the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
>> Jerome> (BDS) campaign launched by Palestinian civil society in
>> Jerome> 2005. Hence, many active Montreal-based Debian developpers,
>> Jerome> along with a number of other Debian developpers, have
>> Jerome> decided not to travel to Israel in August 2020 for
>> Jerome> DebConf20.
>> 
>> 
>> I'm quite frustrated, disappointed and angry reading the above.
>> 
>> I had expressed a fairly strong discomfort with the anti-DC20 messaging
>> I got from the original contact about Montreal.
>
>To offer some contrast, although I can agree such introduction _could_ have 
>been left out of the announcement email, I find the phrasing to be honest, 
>transparent, and fair: it is not against Debian, not against DebConf, not 
>against the DebConf Committee. It is merely explaining in full sight their 
>reasons to a) not attend DebConf; b) organize that event at that time.

It's also adding a lot of unnecessary negativity, in my opinion. It's
easy enough to simply announce an event *without* this. It's another
Debian event, we have lots of them every year. There's no need for
further complaint.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky,
Tongue-tied & twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I...

Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Le lundi, 17 février 2020, 19.19:02 h CET Sam Hartman a écrit :
> > "Jerome" == Jerome Charaoui  writes:
> Jerome> Following the announcement of the DebConf20 location, our
> Jerome> desire to participate became incompatible with our
> Jerome> commitment toward the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
> Jerome> (BDS) campaign launched by Palestinian civil society in
> Jerome> 2005. Hence, many active Montreal-based Debian developpers,
> Jerome> along with a number of other Debian developpers, have
> Jerome> decided not to travel to Israel in August 2020 for
> Jerome> DebConf20.
> 
> 
> I'm quite frustrated, disappointed and angry reading the above.
> 
> I had expressed a fairly strong discomfort with the anti-DC20 messaging
> I got from the original contact about Montreal.

To offer some contrast, although I can agree such introduction _could_ have 
been left out of the announcement email, I find the phrasing to be honest, 
transparent, and fair: it is not against Debian, not against DebConf, not 
against the DebConf Committee. It is merely explaining in full sight their 
reasons to a) not attend DebConf; b) organize that event at that time.

Specifically, I find the announcement OK _because_ the event dates do not 
directly conflict with DebConf20's.

> I'm going to take a couple of days to calm down before making any
> decisions, but this is not appropriate messaging in an event that Debian
> supports.

For the record, I disagree that such messaging is inappropriate on debian-
devel-announce@, nor as framing for an event "that Debian supports".

> In particular, we as a project made a decision about where we were
> holding DebConf 20.

I'd rephrase this as "the DebConf committee, as DPL delegates, made a decision 
about by whom DebConf20 was to be organized and where; this decision has not 
been overriden by a GR" [0,1].  There's nuance away from "we as a project made 
a decision".

> The above messaging  comes across as a condemnation of what the project
> has decided to do, rather than something that supports our diversity and
> compliments DC20 while supporting those who choose not to attend.

Sam; I think you're overreacting and would encourage you to re-read the full 
annoucement mail, and _specifically_ the part that you quoted; it "just" 
explains why some people from our community cannot consider attending 
DebConf20, and how they converted this constraint into organizing _another_ 
Debian gathering, at different dates.

Frankly, leaving this reasoning out of the announcement email would have felt 
disingenuous; as their unease with regards to DebConf20's location was known 
already.

Regards,
OdyX

[0] https://lists.debian.org/debconf-team/2019/03/msg00021.html
[1] Disclaimer: I was a delegate when the decision was taken.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.