Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-10 13:41:29]: >> No, that doesn't make sense. Phrasing it like that makes it sound like >> the GR was intended to have no effect, but at the time you were willing >> to discuss the fact that it may be necessary to replace the existing >> ftp-masters and security team. In fact, you'd already planned for that. > > Me being a good organizer made it easy to for me to look ahead > and look at different outcomes and plan for the different > scenarios, in order to limit disruption and damage to the project > to a minimum. let me quote myself:
Hang on a moment. You said "I found that this apparently was already clear to everyone in the project" (referring to the people concerned already being delegates). So, the GR should have had no effect at all, right? But that can't be true, because otherwise you wouldn't have needed to consider the consequences of them refusing to accept these positions. In fact, you'd considered that possibility to be sufficiently likely that you'd actually gone to the effort of ensuring you had enough machines available to build an entirely new Debian infrastructure. The basic truth is that you wanted this GR because you wanted it to be possible to force the teams to do things when they didn't do what you wanted, and you were fully aware that they would probably refuse. There is absolutely no other reason for wanting a GR on this issue. >> No. Making somebody a constitutional delegate does precisely one thing - >> it gives the DPL the power to fire someone. > > The great majority of people I talked with considered the core > teams delegates already. But they don't consider themselves delegates already. I think that's been discussed quite adequately already. > I would not think that delegates in Debian need to live with the > fear of being fired. It never happend before. Leaders are happy > if there are people who do the work. The idea of delegating to > someone in order to fire him is novel in itself and was certainly > not on our mind. The only difference between a delegate and a non-delegate is that delegates can be fired if they don't do what the DPL or the rest of the project like what they're doing. I put this to you in November, and you didn't disagree. If you don't think that anyone would ever want to fire them, why would you want to make them delegates? >> You told me that you thought that that process had failed: >> >> 23:54 <stockholm> then he can find people who are able and willing to >> work together and delegate to them, if all else fails. >> 23:54 <stockholm> so far, pretty much all has failed. >> >> Why do you now believe otherwise? > > Pigs can fly and the Security Team is changing. I like to believe > that the DPL team had a role in that. If it worked so well for > the security team, why do you think it should be impossible for > the other core teams? To be a leader reqires to have hope for the > future. I still have that and I will pursue those possible > scenarios that I belive hold most promise, trying to staying > clear of the destructive ones. So why did you appear to have no hope last November? <stockholm> they wont talk to me anymore >> At that time, the DPL made two (unreported) formal delegations to the >> security team. That didn't work. Why do you think they'd be any more >> likely to respond to you in your role as DPL? > > Change is possibel. There is hope. See above. Besides: The goal > is not to delegate people forcibly into teams, it always has > been to stimulate jammed teams to reform themselfs. But you've already discussed forcibly adding people to teams - that's how this thread got started. You still haven't said how you expect that to work, given that the previous attempt failed. >> Do you really think that it would have been wrong for people to consider >> the following as a threat? > > you quote the very first draft of a GR that never came to past. > There was a second one and you yourself said it was much better. > Why do you paste here the first draft that I right > away admitted to have flaws? Why do you try to manipulate your > fellow DDs in such a way and did not even mention the second > version you liked? Because the two drafts carried the same meaning, even though the language was different. You admitted that you felt the first draft was non-ideal, but you didn't appear to disagree with it. The message was very clear - you believed that certain teams within the project were not accountable to the project leader, and you wanted them to be made accountable so that they could be forced to do what the DPL wanted them to do. No matter how you word that, it's a threat. It's "Behave yourself, or you'll be overruled". It's not a nice thing to do. >> Let's be entirely clear here. You wanted to propose a GR that threatened >> the existing ftp-masters, DSA and security team with being fired. You >> didn't think that discussing this with the affected people in advance >> was a good idea because they might have felt "threatened" because they >> are "overly touchy". > > Actually I have an irc log here where an FTP master admits to be > overly sensitive as soon as it comes to his office. Therefor I > tried to avoid a ruckus for their sake. For the sake of one ftp master's personal feelings, you failed to tell any of the other people that would be affected by this GR? Full marks for communication and transparency. >> Do you think that describing the security team, DSA and ftp-masters as >> "overly touchy" brings harmony to Debian? > > You seem a tad codependent. I'll accept your diagnosis when you let me know (a) which university you recieved your degree in psychology from, or (b) in which state you are licensed to practise psychiatry. Until then, would you mind answering the question? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
