On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 6:18 PM Miles Fidelman
<mfidel...@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>
> On 1/7/19 7:57 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 01:47:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >> On 1/7/19 10:57 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >>> Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> >>>> On 1/6/19 1:38 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >>>>> [systemd stuff]
> >>>> [systemd stuff]
<snip>
> > The process that was followed was:
> >
> > - the Technical Committee was called on to make a decision about the
> > default init system in Debian (a technical matter).
> > - the TC decided.
> > - the Debian developers as a whole declined to overrule this decision via
> > GR.
> >
> > I have no sympathy for people who have so little actual investment in the
> > Debian Project that they haven't even read the constitution to understand
> > that they don't have a franchise in such decisions, but then come onto the
> > project's mailing lists after the fact to express outrage at a technical
> > decision that they disagree with.
>
>
> Well, first off, the process led to the resignation of the chair of the
> Technical Committee - out of a feeling that the process had become too
> "personalized."
>
> Beyond that, there are a rather large number of folks, impacted by the
> decision, who did not have a seat at the table. Those of us who rely on
> Debian in production, for example. Upstream developers for another.
> Some of us knew about the issues & debates, without having a
> "franchise," others found out after the fact. Seems to me that lack of
> representation is, in itself, a rather big failure of governance.
>
I think one of the reasons Debian is able to function as well as it has is
because they aren't required to put stuff out to a vote from the entire
planet. Having technical people (developers) make technical decisions
seems appropriate, even if you disagree with the decision as a user.
There are just as many people who would be griping about sysvinit at this
juncture. Yes, it was nice to know what your init system was doing, but
there are a lot of features that are not provided by sysvinit but are provided
by systemd.
<snip>
> >
> > To suggest that a different process would have resulted in a different
> > outcome is to demand the Debian constitution be rewritten to let someone
> > else get their way.
> >
> > To suggest that a different process would have made the same outcome more
> > palatable to those on the losing side of the decision is naive.
> >
> > Maybe you personally would have felt better about the outcome, if you
> > personally had been consulted. But that doesn't scale, and provides no
> > basis for an amendment to the Debian decision-making processes.
>
> Personally, as someone who's been involved in other organizations, and
> governance processes, I disagree, on all points. I also suggest that
> your categorical rejection of the possibility that things could be done
> better, is illustrative of the toxicity of the current process.
I think part of the toxicity is inherent in communicating via a mailing list.
It is very easy to feel attacked when someone points out a problem with
your argument (especially if you disagree with their counterpoints) -- even
more so when you have spent hours trying to make a logical argument that
hopefully won't offend anyone.
--
Eldon Koyle
