Re: "done with consensus decisionmaking", "war", "rearguard battles" [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]

[Philip Hands]

Bas Wijnen  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]

[Ian Jackson]

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]

[Ian Jackson]

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]

Bas Wijnen  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  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]

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  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  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, es

Re: "done with consensus decisionmaking", "war", "rearguard battles" [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]

[Josh Triplett]

Sam Hartman wrote:
> Matthew> Josh Triplett  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.

Speaking for myself: I agree completely with Sam's words here.  This is
not about hate.  I simply care about the project and the people involved
in it too much to keep accepting a continued pattern of harmful behavior
against them.

- 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/2014023248.GA24450@thin

Re: "done with consensus decisionmaking", "war", "rearguard battles" [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]

[Holger Levsen]

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]

[Sam Hartman]

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  writes:

Matthew> Josh Triplett  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  
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]

[Matthew Vernon]

Josh Triplett  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]

[Josselin Mouette]

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]

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]

[Gergely Nagy]

> "Aigars" == Aigars Mahinovs  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]

[Josh Triplett]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:01:46AM +0200, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> On 10 November 2014 07:14, 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.
> 
> 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 Mahinovs]

On 10 November 2014 07:14, 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.

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]

[Aigars Mahinovs]

On 10 November 2014 10:42, Ansgar Burchardt  wrote:
> Hi Bas,
>
> Bas Wijnen  writes:
>> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>> 17:34:12  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  Diziet: at least, not while the GR is
>>> happening which seems to directly address this part of the question
>>>
>>> 17:34:28  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]

[Ansgar Burchardt]

Hi Andrey,

Andrey Rahmatullin  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]

[Ansgar Burchardt]

Hi Bas,

Bas Wijnen  writes:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> 17:34:12  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  Diziet: at least, not while the GR is
>> happening which seems to directly address this part of the question
>> 
>> 17:34:28  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] 


-- 
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]

[Sam Hartman]

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 t

Re: "done with consensus decisionmaking", "war", "rearguard battles" [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]

[Bdale Garbee]

Bas Wijnen  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]

[Jonathan Dowland]

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

Re: "done with consensus decisionmaking", "war", "rearguard battles" [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]

[Gergely Nagy]

> "Josh" == Josh Triplett  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]

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

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 Triplett]

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.

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 01:48:42AM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> 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  bdale: The GR is going to be another 3 weeks.
> > 17:14:09  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?

Partly quoting for context, partly showing a general feel of charging
ahead, in this case without even respecting the GR process.  We can
afford to wait for the project to decide how it wants to proceed; if
some change needs to happen to deal with this issue, I doubt we'd have
significant trouble getting a freeze exception for it.

> > 17:15:30  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".

First of all, bear in mind that I helped to revise the draft proposal to
flip the libpam-systemd dependencies around (see discussion in bug
746578), and now agree with the finished proposal to do so, so no,
that's not why I disagree with that.

I also advocated actually testing the result, which Christian Seiler
did.  I proposed the change in
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=765101#38 to make
systemd-shim safer on systemd systems (by not shipping its own dbus
policy), which Steve Langasek agreed with and implemented in
systemd-shim 8-4, and someone else noted that cgmanager already avoids
running automatically on systemd systems.

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.")

> > 17:34:12  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  Diziet: at least, not while the GR is happening 
> > which seems to directly address this part of the question
> > 
> > 17:34:28  dondelelcaro: That's not the question.  The question is 
> > whether it's something that would pass a TC vote.
> > 17:34:32  I'm done with consensus decisionmaking.
> > 17:35:34  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  Diziet: we can always go to majoritarian, but if we 
> > can agree, so much the better.
> > 17:37:17  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.

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.

> 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.

No, majority is not necessarily better than nothing; "nothing" is often
a desirable result.  You've forgotten to ask whether the TC should be
deciding something *at all*.  The TC is an arbitration body of *last
resort*, not a body that should be frequently acting of its own volition
or that of one of its members.

Seeking consensus (whether successful or not) is a process that can help
discover additional solutions that may prove better than simply taking
the first available option that can pass a majority vote.  (Also worth
pointing out that there's a reason we don't use simple-majority as our
voting system.  Our voting system in fact explicitly favors options that
produce broader consensus; it only devolves to simple majority when we
have only two opt

Re: "done with consensus decisionmaking", "war", "rearguard battles" [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]

[Bas Wijnen]

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  bdale: The GR is going to be another 3 weeks.
> 17:14:09  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  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  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  Diziet: at least, not while the GR is happening which 
> seems to directly address this part of the question
> 
> 17:34:28  dondelelcaro: That's not the question.  The question is 
> whether it's something that would pass a TC vote.
> 17:34:32  I'm done with consensus decisionmaking.
> 17:35:34  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  Diziet: we can always go to majoritarian, but if we 
> can agree, so much the better.
> 17:37:17  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; it shows that he cares.

> Does a

Re: "done with consensus decisionmaking", "war", "rearguard battles" [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]

[Andreas Barth]

* 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]

[Josh Triplett]

[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]

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]

[Josh Triplett]

[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  bdale: The GR is going to be another 3 weeks.
17:14:09  We should decide on the automatic switch before then IMO

17:15:30  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  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  Diziet: at least, not while the GR is happening which 
seems to directly address this part of the question

17:34:28  dondelelcaro: That's not the question.  The question is 
whether it's something that would pass a TC vote.
17:34:32  I'm done with consensus decisionmaking.
17:35:34  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  Diziet: we can always go to majoritarian, but if we can 
agree, so much the better.
17:37:17  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