FTR, I don't feel as strongly as Robie seems to, but I agree that the previous team should be emptied from Launchpad.
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 6:11 PM Robie Basak <robie.ba...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > Hi Iain, > > Perhaps I see the situation differently from you. From my perspective, > this is an extraordinary intervention "from above" by consensus from > Ubuntu developers. The backporters team has been unable to act for an > extended period of time, and when threatened with closure, nobody from > the team has been able to volunteer to continue in any role, let alone a > leadership role. Others _have_ volunteered; therefore the team is being > replaced. > > Nothing stops previous team members from continuing, subject to any > requirements from _new_ team leadership, but they haven't even > volunteered to continue. From my perspective they have effectively > resigned through their extended absence. > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 02:24:31PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote: > > > Assuming the change is made, following my proposal detail, I intend to > > > remove everyone from ~ubuntu-backports and add Dan as its sole admin, > > > and then let Dan take it from there (I assume he will add Mattia as a > > > team member, and maybe Iain). > > > > To be honest, I think you could - and I'd prefer it if you would - leave > > this up to the team, especially if there are newly active members. > > From my perspective, this would be as if people who have neglected[1] > matters for years, and effectively blocked progress, would be retaining > their ability to block progress. This is why I'm against your > suggestion. > > IMHO, previous team members who have not participated in this thread > should therefore no longer have the status of being in the team. I agree > with you to leave membership up to the team, but I might differ from you > in that I want this to be up to the *new team*, not people who have > their name attached but haven't done anything for the team in multiple > years and are not stepping up to do so now. IMHO the old and inactive > team members should, due to neglect[1], have no more say than the wider > set of Ubuntu developers in this matter. I value their experience and > opinions, but the final decision making should no longer be up to them > due to their extended absence. IMHO, any previous backporters team > member who doesn't want this to happen has had multiple opportunities to > step up or speak up, and has not done so. > > You, Iain, are an exception because you have actually participated in > the conversation. Thank you :) > > Further IMHO, I think having old inactive members there is harmful. For > example, for years people have been blocked on backports under the > illusion that the team exists and team members just need to appear to > review and approve their stuff. In reality, the team ceased to exist > years ago; it was just Launchpad that was behind. If the team membership > in Launchpad had been empty accordingly, we'd probably have sought to > address the situation much sooner. > > So, my proposal is to empty the team membership, _once_, as part of this > revitalisation. IMHO, only those volunteering to do the whole task of > resurrecting the backports process (so far that's just Dan) should > really have a decision making power here, since they are the only ones > actually taking responsibility. Then the new team members will manage > the team membership list as they feel appropriate. > > > I'd like to talk with the new team about this, but I'm personally not > > interested in participating in the current process. It's broken by > > design IMO. I'd be interested in participating in creating a reformed > > process and more than happy to explain to the team what I consider to be > > wrong with the way things are now, but I'll probably not be leading any > > reform efforts myself just for spoons reasons. On that basis I'd be OK > > stepping down from being an administrator, and possibly leaving the team > > altogether, depending on what the active members consider their > > priorities to be. > > Thank you for staying involved! Under my proposal I would expect you to > end up being re-added, but I think that would/should be entirely up to > the new team to decide. Specifically this is because if you're unable to > help drive the reform, then that's fine but I think that also means that > you cannot also be a decision-maker as to whether you get re-added or > not. That would be up to those who _are_ driving the reform, since part > of their remit and responsibility is to drive the process for team > membership. > > > Again I'd prefer to work that out with the team rather > > than the new owners doing this 'from above'. > > IMHO, that ship has sailed. The "from above" approach has become > necessary because the existing team and team leadership has not managed > to make any progress on this themselves; nor did they engage when Thomas > volunteered to join the team to help. You can't have it both ways here. > > I expect Dan to work with you, and Ubuntu developers at large, to figure > out a process that works for everybody. But I don't think he should be > tied by the need to seek approval from team alumni who have neglected > their responsibilities for years[1]. I think that one way to make this > clear is by explicitly removing old, inactive team members from the team > in Launchpad. This makes it clear that decisions will be made by the > *new* team. Opinions from old team members are valued but they should > not have any decision making powers. Their inability in this area is > exactly why this change is happening. > > If Dan thinks otherwise then my view is moot, of course, since he's part > of the new team that determines membership for themselves. However I > don't think he should be burdened by social obligations of keeping old > and inactive team members around because they might be offended at being > removed, and so I think now is the best time to start afresh. Once the > team works out how they want to manage team membership, he can then add > or re-add anyone as appropriate. > > Robie > > > [1] I hope "neglect" doesn't come across too strong. Everyone has their > own priorities, and when they're volunteering their time (whether > themselves or through an employer), we're grateful for what time they > can commit, not ungrateful for what they cannot find the time to do. > However, from the perspective of the team as a whole, I think that > "neglect" is the only fair way of describing what has happened, and it's > important for us to acknowledge this in order to make progress. > -- > ubuntu-backports mailing list > ubuntu-backpo...@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 4096R/B9444540 http://goo.gl/I8TMB more about me: http://mapreri.org Launchpad User: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri Ubuntu Wiki page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MattiaRizzolo -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel