Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes: ... (or fighting bitter rearguard battles). This may be a language issue, but I have been thinking about what a rearguard battle is, and I can't think of any way Ian can possibly be talking about himself. The rear guard is on the back. This must mean that somebody has won a fight, but continues fighting anyway. Since Ian doesn't seem to have won the fight at least so far, don't you think he would be talking about the opposing army? And from what I've seen, that might be correct, too. At least Lennart seems like he can't get enough of fights. (But then complains that he gets attacked so much...) A rearguard action is one in which the rearguard of a retreating army lays traps and ambushes for the advancing force, to impede their progress. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rearguard-action You seem to have misunderstood that, and have based much of the rest of your post on that misunderstanding. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg,GERMANY pgp8sugpX7XIG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes: First of all, thank you Sam for your calming words. Ditto. In my experience, nothing is gained when we allow emotion to get the better of reason in our involvement with Debian. On the other hand, that means my replies are about several posts, and are rather long. I choose to reply only to the portion in which you replied to me. On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:21:50AM -0800, Bdale Garbee wrote: Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes: The only problematic part I see is that he gets carried away at times. That's a very minor issue, and I forgive him, as long as he isn't insulting people. He has certainly insulted me. https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/06/msg00040.html If you don't know me very well, I suppose you could be forgiven for not realizing just how deeply insulting I find the assertion that I have *ever* behaved dishonorably about *anything* involving Debian. I completely understand that, and how much, that hurts. I would feel the same way. But it is not what I would call an insult. This may be a language issue. To me, an insult is a statement that is made with the purpose of hurting somebody. His statement was an expression of his anger. Of course that hurts, and I'm sure he knows it does, but that is not his reason for making the statement. He honestly believes that you actually were dishonest. Of course, that makes it hurt even more. I agree with all you say here, except that in my culture, accusing an honorable man of a dishonorable act is not just an insult, it's one of a class of insult that in earlier times would have led inevitably to a duel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel). Fortunately, I have thicker skin than my ancestors, and I really enjoyed working with Ian during nearly 19 of the last 20+ years, so this makes me more *sad* than angry. I am much in favour of keeping our communication civilized; I voted for the CoC for that reason and I am happy to see it resulting it sanctions for people who are insulting others repeatedly (by my definition). So... just out of curiosity, how do you reconcile Ian's assertions of dishonorable behavior on my part with item 2 in the Code of Conduct? I would encourage the both of you to have a discussion about this (in private)... I would be pleased to, but Ian made it clear that he doesn't want to receive emails from me. He also rejected my attempt to shake his hand and welcome him to my country at Debconf earlier this year. So, out of respect for his wishes, any further personal discussion between the two of us must await some overture from him. Bdale signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
Bas Wijnen writes (Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]): [stuff] Bas, thank you very much for your support, but I'm afraid I really have to disagree with some of what you have said: So let me explain how I see the situation. I also have a personal opinion about systemd, but that wasn't part of my previous message and I've tried to keep it out of this one (but I didn't entirely succeed). - There are organisations (Microsoft, Apple, probably the NSA, probably not Red Hat) who want to harm free software in general, or Debian in particular. - It is likely that those who are against us try to infiltrate our organisation. These things are probably true, but I don't think they are relevant to the current disputes. - Lennart and his gang are accused of being such infiltrators, trying to take over the free software world by force, with the purpose of harming it to the greatest extent possible. (This is an observation that this accusation exists, not a judgement on whether this is true.) I'm afraid I think that such characterisations of systemd upstream are absurd. I guess it's just a measure of how bad the discourse has become that people will take such things seriously, and think that I believe them. For the record, I don't think it is necessary to invoke a shadowy conspiracy to explain what is going on. The actions we have seen from systemd upstream can IMO be entirely explained by undisputed facts combined with very ordinary human frailty. I certainly have strong feelings about some of what systemd upstream have done. Indeed Bas's comments later in his message cover some of those reasons I have for being upset with systemd's promoters. But, I don't believe that systemd folks are trying to destroy free software, or destroy Debian. Thanks, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21603.41913.48575.266...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
Bdale Garbee writes (Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]): [some things] Bdale, I completely understand why you are upset and angry over what I have said. I'm, unfortunately, also, still, very upset and angry. I don't know how long it will take me to get over that. I find it very sad that it has come to this between us. I also enjoyed working with you, beforehand. But I can't yet find it in me to forgive you, particularly given that AFAICT you feel that there is anything for me to forgive. I'm very sorry. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21603.42697.129107.309...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
First of all, thank you Sam for your calming words. Have you considered running for DPL by any chance? ;-) Like Sam, I will not post a lot here. One reason is that I don't want to spawn a flamewar; the other that I want to let messages sink in before replying to them. I encourage everyone else to do the same. On the other hand, that means my replies are about several posts, and are rather long. On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 09:14:42PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that I didn't start this thread solely because of a single IRC log, but rather because of a pattern of behavior over the last year that shows no signs of changing. To make my point of view clear: I haven't been subscribed to -vote for quite some time (and I think I haven't set mutt up yet to keep me out of the reply-to; however there is no need for a CC), and say your message on -devel. I've tried to stay out of the init system debate as much as I could for the sake of my own happiness and sanity. I've read a bit of history, but am likely missing a lot of context. However, you point to the IRC log as evidence of outrageous behaviour, so I expect to see some extreme examples in it. But I don't see anything wrong with it at all. The only part that is mildly disturbing is completely understandable and excused, as far as I'm concerned, by the massive long-lasting attacks that are directed _at_ Ian. Therefore I felt the need to defend him. I know I'd like someone to do that if I was in his situation. But note that this is my understanding, and I might well misrepresent Ian's opinion. If you want to know for sure what he thinks, ask him. So let me explain how I see the situation. I also have a personal opinion about systemd, but that wasn't part of my previous message and I've tried to keep it out of this one (but I didn't entirely succeed). - There are organisations (Microsoft, Apple, probably the NSA, probably not Red Hat) who want to harm free software in general, or Debian in particular. - It is likely that those who are against us try to infiltrate our organisation. - Lennart and his gang are accused of being such infiltrators, trying to take over the free software world by force, with the purpose of harming it to the greatest extent possible. (This is an observation that this accusation exists, not a judgement on whether this is true.) I expect the above to be without dispute. Now, as I understand it, Ian believes that the systemd folks are indeed evil. I am not expressing an opinion myself; I have not seen enough to know this. However, given what I have seen from systemd people (not just proponents, but people with power, including Lennart himself), I am not surprised that people believe this. This means that Ian views himself as a defender of Debian against evil. It is very noble of him to dedicate so much of his time to this cause, and I admire him for it. As a DD who very much prefers to stay out of the systemd debate, I am happy that people like Ian are willing to do this. (Note that I'm not saying he's better than the rest of the TC; I'm very pleased with all of them.) With this background, I'll respond to some comments: 17:15:30 Diziet I don't think it's reasonable to say that we need a tested alternative given how bad the situation is right now. If you think the situation right now is not so bad, of course you disagree with this. But from his point of view, that this situation is indeed very bad, there is nothing unreasonable about let's do something, anything at all, to make sure this stops; problems we cause can be fixed. I do indeed think that there's something extremely unreasonable about charging ahead with an attempted solution without even testing the result. (We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do it.) Close, but not quite. This must be improved *right now*; this looks like something that will improve it; therefore, we must try it. As I wrote, it's a matter of urgency. Ian believes (AFAICS) that the current situation is worse than nothing. Even if the attempt at fixing it would break everything, that would be an improvement. You don't agree with that assessment, which is fine. But that doesn't make his point of view unreasonable. Fair enough, this is a part where the level of civility is lower. And this was the main set of items I wanted to call attention to from the log, including the one that Sune originally pointed out. So he is angry. And he explains why: 17:37:17 Diziet I and my allies have been being shat on by the majoritarians since February. He feels, rightfully or not, that nobody ever tries to involve him in a consensus, instead, they prefer overruling him by majority. For almost a year. And his anger shows in the form of I'm sick of this, let's just vote on it. While he's obviously angry, I think he is extremely reasonable, especially given the
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes: The only problematic part I see is that he gets carried away at times. That's a very minor issue, and I forgive him, as long as he isn't insulting people. He has certainly insulted me. https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/06/msg00040.html If you don't know me very well, I suppose you could be forgiven for not realizing just how deeply insulting I find the assertion that I have *ever* behaved dishonorably about *anything* involving Debian. Bdale signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
Several people forwarded me copies of the IRC log that Josh pointed to here on the list today in response to my message this morning. I responded to that off-list. I've been debating today whether to respond on-list. I'm not sure this is a good idea, but hey I'm trying my best to be reasoned but also to acknowledge that there's some real frustration here I'm feeling and others are feeling. Hopefully together we can share our feelings in a constructive way and build a stronger community. So, here's what I said with a few minor modifications. It sounds like you're trying to say that Ian is not supporting a consensus process and is thinking of this as a war. You may be hinting strongly that Ian actually would be the one who would turn it into rearguard battles. I can't say that I feel any surprise either at the IRc log you pointed to or when I think about that claim. As I said earlier today I feel very disappointed when I read some claims that Ian has made on-list and in that IRC log. For myself, I don't think that matters much to the points I've generally been trying to make, although I'm very open to listening to your opinions and thoughts and open to re-evaluating things. I'd like Ian to act with compassion and respect both for the process and those involved. That's true regardless of whether he's acted that way in the past and regardless of what he states his goals are. I also respect that he's under a lot of pressure. It's fine to withdraw from a discussion and say Hey I'm not up to being constructive now. I have done that; we'll all do that from time to time. I'd like to create a process that rewards both participating constructively and withdrawing at those times when we cannot do so. If you play nice, you get to play and we agree to listen and think seriously about your feelings, needs and technical points. I'd like to create a process that excludes those who don't play nice in these ways but insist on participating. Even in that I hope for compassion. We're not excluding people to be assholes. I'd prefer that we not even judge them; we all have periods when our emotions get the best of us. I hope we exclude them to get work done and only so far as we need to exclude them to get that work done. Would I be surprised if Ian accepted the challenge i raised? Yes, absolutely! Would I be happy if he accepted that challenge and lived up to it, yes very much so. I'd also be happy if he's not ready for that and takes as much of a step back from the discussion and even the project as he needs. I create a space for Ian to act the part I hope he will act; either to participate constructively or to recooperate with respect and honor. I invite him into that space. If he steps in, I'm happy. If not, I really hope we can all get work done without his participation. Obviously I'm only one person; whether this works depends in part on whether others agree with my approach enough to make it real. Those are my thoughts on technical decision making. I also understand we're a community, and we need to have processes to exclude people from our community. We have the listmasters, IRC operators, COC, and DAM among other things. I hope those folks act with compassion too, but they need compassion both for those who are frustrated when someone decides not to act with consensus as well as for someone so frustrated that they give up on consensus. We cannot destroy our role as a welcoming community just to be open to a couple of very frustrated folks. Compassion can and I hope is combined with firmness. Fighting wars against part of the project is not welcoming. I don't support violence being used to combat violence. My enemies are not acting in good faith, so I won't either, is not something I hope we accept. At the point where we no longer trust someone to follow our processes with good faith, I don't think they should be a developer. We trust developers too much; we give them too much individual responsibility. If someone were going to make a case about Ian to listmaster, IRC operators or the Dam, I think it would be best if the initial case came from someone who generally agrees with Ian. If Ian really has given up on consensus and continues to participate in the process, surely there is someone who values user choice and who thinks Ian has crossed a line. Similarly, complaints about TC members might be better coming from within the TC. I'd ask people to think really carefully and to work with the DPL, the appropriate teams (listmaster, IRC ops, etc), anti-harassment team, before introducing a GR. If you really believe that you've been unable to get redress for an issue of trust, then I understand the need to go forward with potentially painful process. There is real harm that the project suffers when we decline to act when action is required. However there's real harm in excluding folks from the project or from discussions or roles within the project. I hope with all my heart that
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
Hi Bas, Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes: On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: 17:34:12 dondelelcaro Diziet: I don't think that stating that we don't want to swap on upgrades is something we can agree on 17:34:25 dondelelcaro Diziet: at least, not while the GR is happening which seems to directly address this part of the question 17:34:28 Diziet dondelelcaro: That's not the question. The question is whether it's something that would pass a TC vote. [...] Fair enough, this is a part where the level of civility is lower. But Ian doesn't make an unreasonable point. If those who oppose him are forcing their side with an overruling vote, why should he refrain from doing the same? Consensus is great, but if we can't get there, we do want a decision. And majority is better than nothing. I find it at least very disrespectful to propose a technical committee resolution that seems to contradict a GR currently in the voting phase. The only problematic part I see is that he gets carried away at times. That's a very minor issue, and I forgive him, as long as he isn't insulting people. In fact, I not only forgive him; I applaud him for it; it shows that he cares. I don't think it's a minor issue if a member of a committee that exists to arbitrate on a basis of technical arguments starts to repeatedly assert one side acts not only out of bad faith, but out of malice. You might want to investigate why someone wrote [1]. Do you expect people who are told they act out of malice to trust that this is still a fair decision process? I do not, and I think it's a good reason to ask somebody to consider to step back. Ansgar [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/01/msg00054.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87h9y74fao@deep-thought.43-1.org
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
Hi Andrey, Andrey Rahmatullin w...@debian.org writes: On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee? Option 1: Agreement of DPL and an 1:1 majority in TC (6.2.5). Option 2: GR with a 2:1 majority to act with TC powers (4.1.4). Option 3: GR with an 1:1 majority to act with DAM powers (4.1.3) to expel the person from the project altogether. I think you forget the option that (I think) is the least personal damaging one: Option 0: Ask the member to consider stepping back himself. Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87d28v4f7k@deep-thought.43-1.org
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
On 10 November 2014 10:42, Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org wrote: Hi Bas, Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes: On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: 17:34:12 dondelelcaro Diziet: I don't think that stating that we don't want to swap on upgrades is something we can agree on 17:34:25 dondelelcaro Diziet: at least, not while the GR is happening which seems to directly address this part of the question 17:34:28 Diziet dondelelcaro: That's not the question. The question is whether it's something that would pass a TC vote. [...] Fair enough, this is a part where the level of civility is lower. But Ian doesn't make an unreasonable point. If those who oppose him are forcing their side with an overruling vote, why should he refrain from doing the same? Consensus is great, but if we can't get there, we do want a decision. And majority is better than nothing. I find it at least very disrespectful to propose a technical committee resolution that seems to contradict a GR currently in the voting phase. How exactly does that contradict the GR? The GR is currently between: 1. Non-default inits must be supported (as PID1) 2. Non-default inits should be supported 3/4 - nothing to see here, move along, anyone can do anything they want. The proposed TC resolution is what should happen on upgrade from previous Debian stable version to jessie - should the init system be switched for the user or not. There is *no* option in the GR that says that *only* systemd is to be supported. That would be the only option that would contradict a decision to not switch over the default init system on an upgrade. In fact no option in the GR says anything about what should happen to the init system on upgrade and no GR option contradicts either possible TC decision on the topic. So I am quite surprised to see that it somehow directly address this part of the question. -- Best regards, Aigars Mahinovsmailto:aigar...@debian.org #--# | .''`.Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org)| | : :' : Latvian Open Source Assoc. (http://www.laka.lv) | | `. `'Linux Administration and Free Software Consulting | | `- (http://www.aiteki.com) | #--# -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CABpYwDXJYd=orhPaiZOUDJvDTFZMNZ+RrrEpc+B3q532e=0...@mail.gmail.com
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
On 10 November 2014 07:14, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that I didn't start this thread solely because of a single IRC log, but rather because of a pattern of behavior over the last year that shows no signs of changing. I do find it quite alarming that this discussion has now divulged into a discussion of the behavior one of the initiators of the discussion and has completely abandoned the actual issues. Regardless of who started what and when, attacking personal credibility of your opponent is not a winning argument. Even if person X feels that he is at war, that alone does not make his technical arguments invalid. If you do not liek where Ian is coming from with his point of view - do not argue with him. Argue with other people. Or, better yet, argue with the facts. -- Best regards, Aigars Mahinovsmailto:aigar...@debian.org #--# | .''`.Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org)| | : :' : Latvian Open Source Assoc. (http://www.laka.lv) | | `. `'Linux Administration and Free Software Consulting | | `- (http://www.aiteki.com) | #--# -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cabpywdupcxiq_zbd5crgzkwg2rzntgzc2-nwcka+whk91jv...@mail.gmail.com
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:01:46AM +0200, Aigars Mahinovs wrote: On 10 November 2014 07:14, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that I didn't start this thread solely because of a single IRC log, but rather because of a pattern of behavior over the last year that shows no signs of changing. I do find it quite alarming that this discussion has now divulged into a discussion of the behavior one of the initiators of the discussion and has completely abandoned the actual issues. Regardless of who started what and when, attacking personal credibility of your opponent is not a winning argument. I am not in any way attacking personal credibility. I am expressing concern with observed actions, which seems entirely appropriate. Even if person X feels that he is at war, that alone does not make his technical arguments invalid. Which is why I continue to engage with the technical arguments, separately. It does, however, call both his objectivity and his ability to effectively serve on a *dispute-resolution* body into question. If you do not liek where Ian is coming from with his point of view - do not argue with him. Argue with other people. Or, better yet, argue with the facts. I've done that as well, for the last year. This has nothing to do with his point of view on specific technical topics; there are plenty of people on both sides of various topics (init systems and otherwise) who seem quite capable of doing an effective job on the TC. - Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141110094506.GF1085@thin
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
Aigars == Aigars Mahinovs aigar...@gmail.com writes: Aigars If you do not liek where Ian is coming from with his point of view - Aigars do not argue with him. Argue with other people. Or, better yet, argue Aigars with the facts. This sounds awfully similar to Don't feed the trolls, and we've seen how well that works (it doesn't). -- |8] signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee? Someone pointed out to me privately that there's a much easier way of handling this. See the Maximum term for tech ctte members thread. Such a proposal would deal with this without singling anyone out and without explicitly censuring any particular actions, and would furthermore establish an ongoing procedure that seems more broadly useful. With that in mind, rather than encouraging the initiation of any kind of one-off process for this case, I would instead encourage anyone who feels strongly about this issue to participate in the drafting/sponsorship process of that GR, which at the moment needs one or more people to help work out exact wording, and which is likely suffering from current -vote/-ctte fatigue. [I'd like to thank the numerous developers who have responded either publically or privately. In particular, I'm glad that I was able to give a voice to concerns that many people did not feel comfortable raising themselves.] - Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141110100935.GG1085@thin
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
Le lundi 10 novembre 2014 à 09:44 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit : I think you forget the option that (I think) is the least personal damaging one: Option 0: Ask the member to consider stepping back himself. This has already been asked, several times, by myself and by other people. I think it should be clear now that he will not step back unless the project asks him to do so. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1415615035.4372.7.ca...@kagura.malsain.org
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org writes: On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee? Someone pointed out to me privately that there's a much easier way of handling this. See the Maximum term for tech ctte members thread. Such a proposal would deal with this without singling anyone out and without explicitly censuring any particular actions, and would furthermore establish an ongoing procedure that seems more broadly useful. I'm not sure encouraging if you hate Ian, vote for a maximum term for committee members is very constructive. Regards, Matthew -- At least you know where you are with Microsoft. True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle. http://www.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5bzjbzw2rq@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
This is likely to be my last message on this sub-thread, or at least I'm definitely slowing down responses. Replying to two messages. Matthew == Matthew Vernon matt...@debian.org writes: Matthew Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org writes: On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee? Someone pointed out to me privately that there's a much easier way of handling this. See the Maximum term for tech ctte members thread. Such a proposal would deal with this without singling anyone out and without explicitly censuring any particular actions, and would furthermore establish an ongoing procedure that seems more broadly useful. Matthew I'm not sure encouraging if you hate Ian, vote for a Matthew maximum term for committee members is very constructive. Hi Matthew, I feel that I at least haven't been heard very well when I read the above and would like to be heard differently. I do not hate Ian. I do not think anything Josh has said implies that Josh hates Ian. I disagree with some of the actions Ian has chosen to take very strongly. I believe that they tend to create a community that discourages a form of compassionate, constructive discussion I value strongly. I value that form of discussion strongly enough that I believe it is appropriate to take steps to exclude people who are not acting with compassion and respect. Such steps can include talking to those people and asking them to step back until they are ready, as well as more formal procedures. For me, nothing about this involves hate. I can sometimes really understand a deep hurt that someone is feeling that motivates them to act in a manner I disagree with. Often, that understanding is sufficient that I can connect with them and find a place where we can meet with compassion and respect. Sometimes, the greatest understanding does not bridge that gap. Obviously, I cannot speak for Josh, but I hope I at least am heard differently than you imply above. Aigars On 10 November 2014 07:14, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that I didn't start this thread solely because of a single IRC log, but rather because of a pattern of behavior over the last year that shows no signs of changing. Aigars I do find it quite alarming that this discussion has now Aigars divulged into a discussion of the behavior one of the Aigars initiators of the discussion and has completely abandoned Aigars the actual issues. Regardless of who started what and when, Aigars attacking personal credibility of your opponent is not a Aigars winning argument. Unfortunately, this discussion exists within a broader context of a community. In order to be a welcoming community that encourages participation from a broad audience--in order to be a community we want to be part of, we need to have mechanisms for maintaining respectful discourse. It's really hard to say I disagree very strongly with the behavior of a respected member of this community. That shouldn't be too easy; we don't want people responding in that way every time they get upset or angry. However it must not be too hard, and it absolutely must not be forbidden if we're going to have a good way to respond to behavior that we find does not create the climate we wish to have. Also, while this does not directly disagree with what you say, we may not be in agreement on one key point. I think it is strongly desirable not to respond to technical points until they are raised in a constructive and respectful manner. By doing so we can create incentives to respond as we hope people will. --Sam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/01499af5767f-b6f607b9-4174-4926-81aa-9cbd56ccff6a-000...@email.amazonses.com
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
Hi Sam, I surely hate noone here, thank you for your calming and insightful words. cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
[CCed to a wider audience, but reply-to and mail-followup-to set to avoid a prolonged cross-list thread.] Sune Vuorela wrote: I have a hard time assuming good faith from people who are at war. /Sune [17:35:34] http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2014/debian-ctte.2014-10-30-17.00.log.html Sune, Thank you for calling attention to that very disturbing IRC log. I'd recommend reading the whole thing, but I've called out a few particularly disturbing quotes below that make me quite done with assuming anything even remotely close to good faith anymore. (Note that Diziet is Ian's IRC nick.) 17:14:02 Diziet bdale: The GR is going to be another 3 weeks. 17:14:09 Diziet We should decide on the automatic switch before then IMO 17:15:30 Diziet I don't think it's reasonable to say that we need a tested alternative given how bad the situation is right now. (After repetition of the exact wording of the We aren't convinced wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sure enough it did...) 17:34:12 dondelelcaro Diziet: I don't think that stating that we don't want to swap on upgrades is something we can agree on 17:34:25 dondelelcaro Diziet: at least, not while the GR is happening which seems to directly address this part of the question 17:34:28 Diziet dondelelcaro: That's not the question. The question is whether it's something that would pass a TC vote. 17:34:32 Diziet I'm done with consensus decisionmaking. 17:35:34 Diziet That's not to say I'm not open to convincing. But everything done by my opponents in this whole war has been done on a majoritarian basis and I see no reason to limit myself to consensual acts. 17:36:48 dondelelcaro Diziet: we can always go to majoritarian, but if we can agree, so much the better. 17:37:17 Diziet dondelelcaro: I and my allies have been being shat on by the majoritarians since February. It's too late for that. (I'll also point out the pile of #action items Ian self-assigned, as well as the pile of times Ian has effectively self-referred items to the TC in the first place.) I've already felt from the more public portions of the TC discussions that Ian has been using the TC as a personal stick to hit people with. This makes it even more clear. See also Joey Hess's near-final mail at https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/11/msg00045.html , pointing out the same issues. Calling this a war, being done with consensus decisionmaking, bitter rearguard battles indeed... To put it bluntly: I don't believe this is even remotely acceptable behavior from a member of the TC (or a member of the project in general, but in the latter case someone has less potential to cause damage). Does anyone, in light of the above, feel even remotely comfortable having Ian continue to wield^Wserve on the technical committee? I don't care *how* you feel about init systems or any other issue; the above actions, tactics, and statements, and similarly consistent ones elsewhere are not even remotely acceptable on any side. The frothing-mad rampage and the battle-on-every-possible-front needs to end. I think it's safe to say that there's a substantial number of people hoping that the current GR will actually *settle* this question, with the project having spoken. We clearly have a pile of people who want to discuss and deal with the init system issue, many of whom are still capable of productive discussion and consensus-building. Many people are actively developing solutions to make the situation better. I've seen very impressive reasoning and careful judgement by various people in this and other issues. Russ Allbery comes to mind as the high standard we should expect from our TC members. And every other member of the TC, on *both* sides, seems quite reasoned and reasonable. So, at the risk of making things worse before they get better, since nobody else seems willing to explicitly say it: What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141109202203.GA1700@thin
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote: (After repetition of the exact wording of the We aren't convinced wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sure enough it did...) The we are currently skeptical wording was not present in the passed resolution; it was amended in 7a000[1]. That paragraph 4 of that decision could be interpreted as deciding the switching issue was only clear to me in retrospect, and was certainly not my intention (and I don't believe it reflects the intention of anyone else on the CTTE.) Indeed, paragraph 4 of that decision is actually a reflection of my personal reluctance to decide this issue in the CTTE without a very specific technical proposal and thorough testing. Especially considering that we would be overriding the transition plan announced in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/07/msg00611.html at a very late date. See https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20141107211930.gm29...@teltox.donarmstrong.com for my specific response to this issue when it was raised. 1: http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/debian-ctte.git/commit/?id=7a0009d350d57b89aa848f4d66a0b40959893373 -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com If you have the slightest bit of intellectual integrity you cannot support the government. -- anonymous -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141109212136.gg29...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
[Please CC me on replies.] Don Armstrong wrote: On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote: (After repetition of the exact wording of the We aren't convinced wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sure enough it did...) The we are currently skeptical wording was not present in the passed resolution; it was amended in 7a000[1]. I stand corrected; thank you. However, I don't think that changes the point. The resulting decision had effectively the same tone. Linking to the resolution announcement for reference: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg0.html That paragraph 4 of that decision could be interpreted as deciding the switching issue was only clear to me in retrospect, and was certainly not my intention (and I don't believe it reflects the intention of anyone else on the CTTE.) I completely believe that it was not the intention of most of the people voting for the resolution that passed. However, the combination of item 1 (explicitly narrowing the scope of the previous TC decision), item 4 (inviting proposals towards one specific approach), and item 5 (After the result of the General Resolution is known, we intend to formally resolve the question, as though the TC *should* continue to take action after the GR) comes across as both threatening and interminable, and makes it fairly clear what action the TC wants to take. Furthermore, the very top of the announcement in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg0.html is a lie of omission as well: The technical committee was asked. As Joey Hess put it in https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/11/msg00045.html: I am astounded that, in #762194, the technical committe has 1. Decided it should make a decision, when no disagreement between maintainers of affected packages is involved. 2. Ignored evidence of ongoing work. (specifically, https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762194#25) 3. Plowed ahead with a vote that decides a massively complicated issue with a grand total of 3 days of discussion. This is not a decision-making process that will yeild a high-quality distibution. Or one that I can be proud to be involved with. Or one that, frankly, gives me any confidence in the technical committee's current membership or indeed reason to continue to exist. I agree almost completely with Joey's thoughts above, with one exception. Personally, I still have plenty of confidence in almost all of the technical committee's current membership, including those on *both* sides of the current debate, with one very glaring exception. I would also suggest that it's a bad idea to let a single member of an arbitration body refer in a pile of issues, write up draft resolutions for those issues, push for rapid discussion and votes on those issues, and send out the resulting decisions. Those do not seem like signs of a healthy process, and they certainly contribute to the impression of the TC being used as a weapon. - Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141109220125.GA1457@thin
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
* Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [141109 22:22]: On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote: (After repetition of the exact wording of the We aren't convinced wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sure enough it did...) The we are currently skeptical wording was not present in the passed resolution; it was amended in 7a000[1]. That paragraph 4 of that decision could be interpreted as deciding the switching issue was only clear to me in retrospect, and was certainly not my intention (and I don't believe it reflects the intention of anyone else on the CTTE.) I fully agree to that statement (and to the rest of your mail). Indeed, paragraph 4 of that decision is actually a reflection of my personal reluctance to decide this issue in the CTTE without a very specific technical proposal and thorough testing. Also, we shouldn't decide on things not ready, and so in case someone would like the ctte to overrule here, there is just no ground currently. So anyone wanting a specific decision from the ctte (like the default shouldn't switch on dist-upgrade, the default should switch on dist-upgrade, or whatever else) needs to show before the decision that this is reasonable possible, what are the downsides of the decision and also why the ctte needs to decide (especially as the ctte only decides as last-resort). Details see paragraph 4, for any decision. So we could clone paragraph 4 to an 4a, 4b etc for any of other cases people would like us to decide here. In hindsight it might have been better to not decide yet but to suspend that topic until we had that plan but it's easier to say so afterwards. In theory our decision is nothing else, but some people interpret it different which makes me quite sad. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141109221450.gb...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: [CCed to a wider audience, but reply-to and mail-followup-to set to avoid a prolonged cross-list thread.] Sune Vuorela wrote: I have a hard time assuming good faith from people who are at war. Thank you for calling attention to that very disturbing IRC log. I'd recommend reading the whole thing, I did, and I fail to see what is disturbing about it. I see a TC which has a good discussion over an emotional subject. And they succeed very well in keeping it civil almost all of the time. 17:14:02 Diziet bdale: The GR is going to be another 3 weeks. 17:14:09 Diziet We should decide on the automatic switch before then IMO What is disturbing about this? We were about to enter a freeze. Waiting 3 weeks before deciding on an issue which directly impacts the release doesn't sound like a good idea. How is that controversial? 17:15:30 Diziet I don't think it's reasonable to say that we need a tested alternative given how bad the situation is right now. If you think the situation right now is not so bad, of course you disagree with this. But from his point of view, that this situation is indeed very bad, there is nothing unreasonable about let's do something, anything at all, to make sure this stops; problems we cause can be fixed. 17:34:12 dondelelcaro Diziet: I don't think that stating that we don't want to swap on upgrades is something we can agree on 17:34:25 dondelelcaro Diziet: at least, not while the GR is happening which seems to directly address this part of the question 17:34:28 Diziet dondelelcaro: That's not the question. The question is whether it's something that would pass a TC vote. 17:34:32 Diziet I'm done with consensus decisionmaking. 17:35:34 Diziet That's not to say I'm not open to convincing. But everything done by my opponents in this whole war has been done on a majoritarian basis and I see no reason to limit myself to consensual acts. 17:36:48 dondelelcaro Diziet: we can always go to majoritarian, but if we can agree, so much the better. 17:37:17 Diziet dondelelcaro: I and my allies have been being shat on by the majoritarians since February. It's too late for that. Fair enough, this is a part where the level of civility is lower. But Ian doesn't make an unreasonable point. If those who oppose him are forcing their side with an overruling vote, why should he refrain from doing the same? Consensus is great, but if we can't get there, we do want a decision. And majority is better than nothing. (I'll also point out the pile of #action items Ian self-assigned, What's wrong with that? Would you rather see him say This needs to be done; someone else do it please? If the others would disagree that it needs to be done, they would speak up. That seems to be exactly the reason he's publishing his intent to do this: to make sure there is consensus that it is something that needs to be done. as well as the pile of times Ian has effectively self-referred items to the TC in the first place.) He is a DD, you know? Why would he not be allowed to refer items to the TC? He could of course ask a friend to do it for him, but that would just be useless work. He has every right to refer items to the TC. I've already felt from the more public portions of the TC discussions that Ian has been using the TC as a personal stick to hit people with. I don't share that view at all. Ian feels strongly about the issues, and gets carried away at times. IMO, that is a feature, not a bug, for a TC member. Calling this a war, Have you followed the discussion? This _is_ a war. And not just from Ian's side: the pro-systemd amendment in the current vote seems to say we demand that you trust everything we do, and we don't trust what you do. When I first read it my reaction was Woah! That's a declaration of war! How anyone could think it would be a good idea to include that in the amendment was beyond me. But I think I understand it now. Because it already is a war; no need to declare it. These people, just like Ian, feel strongly about this. And that is in fact a positive thing, just like I think it is positive that Ian feels so strongly about it. It means that they aren't cold-heartedly sabotaging the system as ordered by their corporate overlords. That may seem obvious, but it hasn't always been clear. ;-) To put it bluntly: I don't believe this is even remotely acceptable behavior from a member of the TC (or a member of the project in general, but in the latter case someone has less potential to cause damage). Which part is the problem? That he has a strong opinion? That he wants to speed this up and get to a decision, even without consensus? That he states facts? The only problematic part I see is that he gets carried away at times. That's a very minor issue, and I forgive him, as long as he isn't insulting people. In fact, I not only forgive him; I applaud him for it;
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee? Option 1: Agreement of DPL and an 1:1 majority in TC (6.2.5). Option 2: GR with a 2:1 majority to act with TC powers (4.1.4). Option 3: GR with an 1:1 majority to act with DAM powers (4.1.3) to expel the person from the project altogether. -- WBR, wRAR -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141110060322.ga6...@belkar.wrar.name
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
Josh == Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org writes: Josh For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that I didn't start this Josh thread solely because of a single IRC log, but rather because of a Josh pattern of behavior over the last year that shows no signs of Josh changing. Regarding the pattern: see the the CfVs[1][2][3] called in extreme anger, back in February. Those show a similar pattern. Concerns were expressed back then (including contacting the DPL and DAM), but apparently, nothing of substance changed since then. [1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00344.html [2]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00353.html [3]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00355.html -- |8] signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee? An alternative to picking on one committee member would be to disband the current committee entirely, with an explicit rider stating that the action should not reflect on any one member in isolation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141110075510.gc27...@chew.redmars.org
