Re: Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
Hi, Am Friday 30 October 2009 17:30:44 schrieb Benj. Mako Hill: > Martin Pitt has apparently recently extended the terms of Søren Hansen > and Michael Bienia by 3 months. > > As folks should know by now, there's a recently executed plan to split > developer membership out from the TB into a new developer membership > board (DMB) and a plan to merge the DMB with the MC or work out some > sort of other arrangement. For a reasons related to the release and > archive restructuring, a bunch of things are still up in the air. > > Rather than run an election for a position that may disappear in the > next couple months, the CC, DMB, Søren, and Michael talked about this > and agreed to a 3 month extension of their terms on the MOTU Council to > give everyone involved some time to make the decisions and changes that > are necessary and figure out the process by which the MC/DMB seats will > be filled. As soon as it's clear what needs to happen, we will run > elections. > > I'm sure someone will correct me if I've managed to screw that up. :) yep, you screwed up, at least in my eyes :P ;). First off, such an announcement won't reach a large number of developers unless sent to e.g. ubuntu-motu or ubuntu-devel (@l.u.c). CC'ing ubuntu-motu and keeping the complete original text for reference. That aside, I find it very interesting and disturbing that membership of otherwise voted upon boards are (as it occurs to me from this mail) prolonged by the will of one developer. Maybe you can clear up what happened? Did that happen on request of the community council? Or was it that tech board interfered here? And if either, on what basis? Or anything else I just didn't get? Cheers, Stefan. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
Am Samstag, den 31.10.2009, 02:58 +0100 schrieb Stefan Potyra: > That aside, I find it very interesting and disturbing that membership of > otherwise voted upon boards are (as it occurs to me from this mail) prolonged > by the will of one developer. Maybe you can clear up what happened? Did that > happen on request of the community council? Or was it that tech board > interfered here? And if either, on what basis? Or anything else I just didn't > get? It was not the will of one developer (Martin merely pushed the buttons in LP), but an unanimous decision by the TB and CC. Here's the details. Søren and Michael were going to lose their team membership in a couple of days, the result being that we wouldn't have had quorum in the meeting in which we processed Jonathan's application and had a discussion with Marc (and probably skip the next one or two meetings too, because that's how long elections take). We bounced the idea of elections back and forth and discussed if it really made sense, as the Developer Membership Board is soon going to take over developer applications completely. There is no concrete timeline for this transition yet, so Søren and Michael said that an extension of 3 months were the maximum they were comfortable with to bridge the gap between now and then. True it was a pragmatic decision, but not by one developer, but by our top governance bodies and it was sensibly discussed with all the pros and cons. Hope that explains some missing details. Have a great day, Daniel -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:59:15 +0100 Daniel Holbach wrote: >Am Samstag, den 31.10.2009, 02:58 +0100 schrieb Stefan Potyra: >> That aside, I find it very interesting and disturbing that membership of >> otherwise voted upon boards are (as it occurs to me from this mail) >> prolonged >> by the will of one developer. Maybe you can clear up what happened? Did that >> happen on request of the community council? Or was it that tech board >> interfered here? And if either, on what basis? Or anything else I just >> didn't >> get? > >It was not the will of one developer (Martin merely pushed the buttons >in LP), but an unanimous decision by the TB and CC. Here's the details. > >Søren and Michael were going to lose their team membership in a couple >of days, the result being that we wouldn't have had quorum in the >meeting in which we processed Jonathan's application and had a >discussion with Marc (and probably skip the next one or two meetings >too, because that's how long elections take). > >We bounced the idea of elections back and forth and discussed if it >really made sense, as the Developer Membership Board is soon going to >take over developer applications completely. There is no concrete >timeline for this transition yet, so Søren and Michael said that an >extension of 3 months were the maximum they were comfortable with to >bridge the gap between now and then. > >True it was a pragmatic decision, but not by one developer, but by our >top governance bodies and it was sensibly discussed with all the pros >and cons. > >Hope that explains some missing details. > >Have a great day, > Daniel Would you please point me to the minutes of the meetings or the archive of the discussion where this decision was taken? Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
Hi Martin, Am Saturday 31 October 2009 10:57:21 schrieb Martin Pitt: > Stefan Potyra [2009-10-31 2:58 +0100]: > > That aside, I find it very interesting and disturbing that membership of > > otherwise voted upon boards are (as it occurs to me from this mail) > > prolonged by the will of one developer. > > Well, it wasn't just that. It was discussed on th DMB list, and there > was general agreement (Mark voted +1 on the list, Colin on IRC, I > agreed as well, and there was no objection from other members). thanks for clearing that up, but I must admit that I'm now even more confused: Daniel wrote that this was a decision of TB and CC, while you wrote that it was done on the (private) DMB list, making me assume that it was an action of DMB. Which board did take the decision then? > > We will talk about the MC/DMB at next Tuesday's TB meeting, but didn't > want to inhibit the current MC's function for this week. How would not taking action have inhibited the MC's function? Cheers, Stefan. -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
Am Samstag, den 31.10.2009, 13:08 -0400 schrieb Scott Kitterman: > Would you please point me to the minutes of the meetings or the archive of > the discussion where this decision was taken? It was discussed via email. Have a great day, Daniel -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
Stefan Potyra wrote: > Hi Martin, > > Am Saturday 31 October 2009 10:57:21 schrieb Martin Pitt: > >> Stefan Potyra [2009-10-31 2:58 +0100]: >> >>> That aside, I find it very interesting and disturbing that membership of >>> otherwise voted upon boards are (as it occurs to me from this mail) >>> prolonged by the will of one developer. >>> >> Well, it wasn't just that. It was discussed on th DMB list, and there >> was general agreement (Mark voted +1 on the list, Colin on IRC, I >> agreed as well, and there was no objection from other members). >> > > thanks for clearing that up, but I must admit that I'm now even more > confused: > Daniel wrote that this was a decision of TB and CC, while you wrote that it > was done on the (private) DMB list, making me assume that it was an action of > DMB. Which board did take the decision then? > Oh for Pete's sake! This was a simple pragmatic decision to preserve the status quo while we move to a cleaner, better structure. Let's not bog ourselves down in procedural pedantry. If the CC need to, we can make direct appointments and replacements on any structure in Ubuntu, and will do so. Mark -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:22:26 +0100 Daniel Holbach wrote: >Am Samstag, den 31.10.2009, 13:08 -0400 schrieb Scott Kitterman: >> Would you please point me to the minutes of the meetings or the archive of the discussion where this decision was taken? > >It was discussed via email. > Was there some need for this discussion to take place in private or do we lack an appropriate public venue for such discussions? I'm not questioning their right to make the decision, but my impression is that the process was less transparent than it could have (should have) been. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
Hi Mark, Am Monday 02 November 2009 11:00:57 schrieb Mark Shuttleworth: > Stefan Potyra wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > > > Am Saturday 31 October 2009 10:57:21 schrieb Martin Pitt: > >> Stefan Potyra [2009-10-31 2:58 +0100]: > >>> That aside, I find it very interesting and disturbing that membership > >>> of otherwise voted upon boards are (as it occurs to me from this mail) > >>> prolonged by the will of one developer. > >> > >> Well, it wasn't just that. It was discussed on th DMB list, and there > >> was general agreement (Mark voted +1 on the list, Colin on IRC, I > >> agreed as well, and there was no objection from other members). > > > > thanks for clearing that up, but I must admit that I'm now even more > > confused: Daniel wrote that this was a decision of TB and CC, while you > > wrote that it was done on the (private) DMB list, making me assume that > > it was an action of DMB. Which board did take the decision then? > > Oh for Pete's sake! > > This was a simple pragmatic decision to preserve the status quo while we > move to a cleaner, better structure. > > Let's not bog ourselves down in procedural pedantry. If the CC need to, > we can make direct appointments and replacements on any structure in > Ubuntu, and will do so. Thanks, Mark, that's at least a clear announcement, helping me better understand how the Ubuntu government works in reality, and to what degree government bodies value the community. Cheers, Stefan. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Stefan Potyra wrote: > Thanks, Mark, that's at least a clear announcement, helping me better > understand how the Ubuntu government works in reality, and to what degree > government bodies value the community. Stefan, that's rather harsh. The CC is predominantly made up of community members. Only 2 out of 8 of its members work for Canonical. Of course we value the community. The community is the reason for us being on the Council and we represent it. Here we took action in consultation with the DMB to ensure that two members of the seven members of the MC didn't expire in circumstances where the MC is not going to exist in three months. The alternative was an election which we felt was overkill given that there is work going on to restructure the governance system in this area. Frankly, I think I'm right in saying that we felt that this was an easy decision and couldn't see any serious objection. -- Matthew East http://www.mdke.org gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:00:57 + Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > If the CC need to, >we can make direct appointments and replacements on any structure in >Ubuntu, and will do so. > Certainly the CC can (and if they can't you, as SABDFL, can). That doesn't mean you should. While the outcome in this case is clearly reasonable, I think some push back about how the decision was taken is also reasonable. As nearly as I can determine, the discussion that led to this decision was all, or nearly all, non-public. I understand that there was some sense of urgency, but I'm not aware of any actual need for privacy. Transparency in governance is an essential thing for Ubuntu (IMO). Personally, I find the lack of transparency (and the negative reaction to calls for transparency) unfortunate at best. Many of the people involved in Ubuntu believe that working in an open and collaborative manner to produce software (and a Linux dostribution) is the best, most effective way to do it. It shouldn't be suprising to find that perspective generalized to other aspects of the project. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Matthew East wrote: > The CC is predominantly made up of community members. Only 2 out of 8 > of its members work for Canonical. Of course we value the community. P.S. I've just realised that the above could be read as meaning that the 2 people in the CC who work for Canonical don't value the community - that's completely incorrect, of course. Anyway, I hope you got the point. In response to Scott's post, I think we can take the point. I don't think that any lack of transparency here was intentional - it just seemed to be a very easy decision and it was more or less coincidental that the people copied into the email chain were the MC, the CC and the DMB - we could just as easily have copied in the motu list, and perhaps we should have done. It just didn't occur to us, probably because the decision seemed to be so uncontroversial. Anyway, the decision stands and hopefully everyone can agree with Scott that the outcome is reasonable. -- Matthew East http://www.mdke.org gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:00:57 + Mark Shuttleworth > wrote: > >> If the CC need to, >> we can make direct appointments and replacements on any structure in >> Ubuntu, and will do so. >> >> > > Certainly the CC can (and if they can't you, as SABDFL, can). That doesn't > mean you should. > > While the outcome in this case is clearly reasonable, I think some push > back about how the decision was taken is also reasonable. As nearly as I > can determine, the discussion that led to this decision was all, or nearly > all, non-public. I understand that there was some sense of urgency, but > I'm not aware of any actual need for privacy. > > Transparency in governance is an essential thing for Ubuntu (IMO). > Personally, I find the lack of transparency (and the negative reaction to > calls for transparency) unfortunate at best. Many of the people involved > in Ubuntu believe that working in an open and collaborative manner to > produce software (and a Linux dostribution) is the best, most effective way > to do it. It shouldn't be suprising to find that perspective generalized > to other aspects of the project. > "Information is a substitute for trust". In other words, in environments where people don't trust each other, they tend to demand more and more information. "Who took this decision? Why did they take this decision? What was considered in taking the decision?" etc. In really sick communities you will observe endless discussions about how a decision should be taken, followed by demands that the decision be reconsidered because someone who wasn't paying attention at the time now feels that they were excluded from a decision. That's a sign of a community with low trust levels, and poor ability to delegate. Remember, governance in the Ubuntu community is delegated from the CC (and ultimately me). We believe in having a broad strong base of talent to handle the huge scale of Ubuntu, but that's not the same as believing that every decision should be taken in a completely consultative and transparent manner. Don't confuse those two! That's as bad as confusing Ubuntu and democracy - this is an appointed meritocracy. We try to nominate the most competent people to the right positions and then trust them to make decisions which bind all of us. We DON'T second guess those decisions except in extreme cases. The various teams lead because we trust them to lead. This thread was a clear example of a lack of trust. My point was that in your positions you either trust the CC, and work with it, even in cases where it is moving faster than you, or you step aside. If you don't trust the CC, you won't get anything done in Ubuntu. In any event, look at the scale of the decision taken. It was about extending *delegated authority* to two people for a short period of time. That does not warrant an extended conversation by all the people cc'd. Be respectful of people's time. Trust decision makers to take decisions, and focus on the things you can do in the area of your responsibility and competence. Mark -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:05:36 + Matthew East wrote: ... >In response to Scott's post, I think we can take the point. I don't >think that any lack of transparency here was intentional - it just >seemed to be a very easy decision and it was more or less coincidental >that the people copied into the email chain were the MC, the CC and >the DMB - we could just as easily have copied in the motu list, and >perhaps we should have done. It just didn't occur to us, probably >because the decision seemed to be so uncontroversial. > >Anyway, the decision stands and hopefully everyone can agree with >Scott that the outcome is reasonable. Personally, I'd be happy if there was a commitment to be more mindful of working in public when possible in the future. I suspect that this release cycle will see the archive reorganization in place. I have seen indications that the MOTU Council is going to be folded into the DMB and heard that "MOTU is going away", but really have no idea what the plan is. I would encourage those in leadership positions to lean in the direction of over-communicating. MOTU is something that quite a number of people are proud of and have invested in. I suspect there will be bumps along the road, but with early and frequent communication and open decision making a lot of the potential bumps can be avoided. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
Scott Kitterman wrote: > Personally, I'd be happy if there was a commitment to be more mindful of > working in public when possible in the future. +1 > I suspect that this release cycle will see the archive reorganization in > place. I have seen indications that the MOTU Council is going to be folded > into the DMB and heard that "MOTU is going away", but really have no idea > what the plan is. I would encourage those in leadership positions to lean > in the direction of over-communicating. +1 > MOTU is something that quite a number of people are proud of and have > invested in. I suspect there will be bumps along the road, but with early > and frequent communication and open decision making a lot of the potential > bumps can be avoided. +1 That's a hattrick, I agree with ScottK 100%. Cheers, Morten -- Morten Kjeldgaard Ubuntu MOTU Developer GPG Key ID: 404825E7 -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
Hi Mark Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > Remember, governance in the Ubuntu community is delegated from the CC > (and ultimately me). We believe in having a broad strong base of talent > to handle the huge scale of Ubuntu, but that's not the same as believing > that every decision should be taken in a completely consultative and > transparent manner. Don't confuse those two! That's as bad as confusing > Ubuntu and democracy - this is an appointed meritocracy. > > We try to nominate the most competent people to the right positions and > then trust them to make decisions which bind all of us. We DON'T second > guess those decisions except in extreme cases. The various teams lead > because we trust them to lead. The explanation you give above used to be quite easy to find on the Ubuntu website. I used to paste the link to people who would say things like "well that's not very democratic of Ubuntu", but it seems to have faded away through all the website iterations. In my opinion it should be at least easy to find from one of the links on http://www.ubuntu.com/community, and there should probably be some mention of the SABDFL role on http://www.ubuntu.com/community/processes IMHO it's crucial that contributors understand the meritocratic nature of Ubuntu, and if it's explained more prominently there should be less confusion. -Jonathan -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Personally, I'd be happy if there was a commitment to be more mindful of > working in public when possible in the future. > > I suspect that this release cycle will see the archive reorganization in > place. I have seen indications that the MOTU Council is going to be folded > into the DMB and heard that "MOTU is going away", but really have no idea > what the plan is. I would encourage those in leadership positions to lean > in the direction of over-communicating. > > MOTU is something that quite a number of people are proud of and have > invested in. I suspect there will be bumps along the road, but with early > and frequent communication and open decision making a lot of the potential > bumps can be avoided. > > Scott K +1 to everything Scott has said. As a contributor i also know of some 'MOTU changes' that are coming along, but have no information and it would be great to have more insight. It feels like there have been a few issues of late which could of been avoided with more open transparent communication. I understand the the various councils and sabdfl can do as they see fit (and I really believe we are working to the same common goals), but as contributors I believe we can contribute, but are unable to do so if we don't know whats happening. Maybe it seems like the community (I) are whining over little issues (I have no issue with the extension of the 3 months) , but its the principle of openness and transparency i believe Ubuntu is founded on. I put effort into Ubuntu which i care about, and i'd appreciate knowing I have some say and direction in something i really care about, failing this I think we risk alienating and making people question where they put their free time. Stefan -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
On 02/11/2009, at 17.23, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > >>> Let's not bog ourselves down in procedural pedantry. If the CC >>> need to, >>> we can make direct appointments and replacements on any structure in >>> Ubuntu, and will do so. >> >> Thanks, Mark, that's at least a clear announcement, helping me better >> understand how the Ubuntu government works in reality, and to what >> degree >> government bodies value the community. > > Everyone involved values the community. If you doubt that, we have > very > serious problems. Unfortunately, a few minutes after posting the above statement, Stefan sent an email to u-m saying he's no longer sure if he wants to be involved with Ubuntu Development. I'm not sure if these things are connected, but given the timestamps it's certainly possible. When you're at the top of the pyramid, it's easy to view discussions and information as "procedural pedantry". When you're at the _bottom_ of the pyramid, working your behind off for the common good of the project, it is equally easy to become demotivated if you start feeling you're taken for granted and that relevant information doesn't come your way. It's in everybodys good interest to maintain a high level of information and discussion, and since everybody has stated that they have no problem with the actual outcome of the decision, that should pose no problem. What is relevant is that everybodys desire to be "in the loop" is satisfied. Cheers, Morten -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia
While I don't disagree with the term extension, I would have expected the MOTU Council to approach the developer community in this matter and the final decision being taken through a poll (ie. something like "Do you agree with extending Soren and Michael's term?"). In this case, given that the actual decision isn't really such a big deal, I believe even just sending a message like Benjamin's is enough, but it should have had an ending like "If you disagree with this decision please expose your reasons within [reasonable amount of time]", which would have made a lot of difference. Just my 5¢. -- Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) Free Software Developer 363DEAE3 -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
