The minimum discussion period lapsed sometime Saturday.
So, as one of the authors of a proposal, I ask the secretary to please
prepare a ballot and start the vote.
As the DPL, I ask the secretary to extend the voting period by a week.
I think we've gotten to a point where the existing proposals are in
forms that their authors are happy with. Guillem got a chance to author
his proposal and to respond to the comments he received. My reading of
his message is he's happy with where things stand.
This discussion has been really great so far. However, over the last
day, the tone has been turning kind of nasty. We've been sniping at
each other more.
I think there are two contributing factors to that:
First, this has been a long process. We've put in a lot of energy, and
I think some of us are coming to a point where that is rubbing us a bit
raw.
Secondly, discussions run through a progression. In the beginning, you
get the most dedicated people who are currently available. The people
who care enough to make sure they are there. Then as the discussion
progresses, you get more people involved. Each round of new people has
a cost. You have to revisit things, help catch them up, sometimes
reconsider significant chunks of what you have already thought in light
of comments they make. The first couple times this happens, we call it
additional review from a wider audience. It's essential for doing a
good job.
Each successive round of people drifting in has a higher cost.
Typically each successive round of people wondering in are willing to
dedicate less energy, and have less context in what has come before.
Some of the costs grow higher. They are more likely to bring up things
that are well settled without new insight. The earlier participants
know where some of the pain points are, and are more likely to know
where to be careful in what they say to be respectful. After a certain
point, the people drifting in might have apparently really simple ideas
that are unworkable because they disregard the needs of some segment of
the community. Hearing these again and again can be harmful.
I think both factors are contributing.
So, I think we've accomplished what we can accomplish here in this
discussion.
Continuing the discussion would simply escalate tensions for all of us
and I don't think has any probability of significantly increasing the
ballot.
For those who want a statement of principles on the multiple init
systems side, we have option D. For those who want it on the systemd
side we have option F.
There are some interesting things in option G.
I wouldn't be surprised if independent of this GR, people explore
whether those options can have some value in our project.
Those who believe that the project should not be deciding on specifics,
but somehow we should take the statements in G and move forward can vote
that way.
I appreciate that Ian wishes to have an opportunity to explore other
things based on option G.
In other circumstances, I might have had a hard decision about whether
to wait longer to let that discussion progress.
Today, though, Ian's message is contributing to the souring tone of the
discussion.
> All other options [1]
>Lack of an init script is a normal or wishlist bug and
>maintainers can block them because they want systemd
hegemony.
Systemd hegemony is just as loaded as the statements several of us were
complaining about last night.
Similarly:
>Everyone is allowed to use them willy-nilly and non-systemd
>support will rot.
And again:
>Theoretical degradations of dependencies on systemd
>systems
The mail is actually more disrespectful than that. Ian, who has an
excellent command of English rhetoric effectively uses his desire to
talk about option G as a reason to summarize what he sees the key
questions are. But then he chooses to answer these key questions, and
rather than using language respectful to the idea that viewpoints on
these differ wildly, he uses the reasonable measured language of fact
to describe the options he prefers. Then when describing other
options, he continues to use the language of fact, rather than
language that admits to other opinions and acknowledges that much of
this is his opinion.
I know I've warned Ian about this pattern during this discussion.
I know others have talked to Ian about similar issues over the years.
So, even Ian is contributing to a pattern of disrespectful discourse.
I think we've accomplished what we have set out to accomplish: I think we have
a very good ballot.
Any future refinements come at what I believe is too high of a cost.
So I call for votes.
--Sam
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
