[ Marc Haber ] > this is kind of a personal reply; I am therefore writing this to you > directly and only Cc'ing debian-project, and I do not know whether you > read that mailing list. Kind of a personal reply? Considering all of the accusations, and the snide, cynical, and sarcastic remarks, I'd say it's quite personal. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see anything in your response that adds anything to the discussion. If you feel compelled to send such "personal replies", could at least spare the list? Thanks. > On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:21:38AM +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > > I've stayed quiet in this discussion, though several folks have invoked > > my name and ascribed motivations to me that were a little upsetting. I'm > > not responding to that here, > > A pity. I bet many people would like to hear that response. > > > I hear this story all the time from upstreams. "We'd like to help > > distributions, but WHICH distribution should we pick?" > > I have never heard that story from an upstream, neither have I heard > that other maintainers have heard that. Especially not from the > upstream who consider themselves big and powerful. > > > Adopting a broad pattern of cadence and collaboration between many > > distributions won't be a silver bullet for ALL of those problems, but it > > will go a very long way to simplifying the life of both upstreams and > > distribution maintainers. > > It will also cost the free software ecosystem a lot of what's one of > its most major properties: diversity. > > > If upstream knows, for example, that MANY distributions will be > > shipping a particular version of their code and supporting it for > > several years (in fact, if they can sit down with those distributions > > and make suggestions as to which version would be best!) then they > > are more likely to be able to justify doing point releases with > > security fixes for that version... which in turn makes it easier for > > the security teams and maintainers in the distribution. > > In practice, most upstreams adopt a "you're using a version that's two > weeks old, go update to our current development snapshot and see > yourself whether the bug is still there" attitude. > > > Well, the first thing is to agree on the idea of a predictable cadence. > > Although the big threads on this list are a little heartbreaking for me > > to watch, I'm glad that there hasn't been a lot of upset at the idea of > > a cadence in Debian so much as *which* cadence. We can solve the latter, > > we couldn't solve the former. So I'm happy at least at that :-) > > Most upset that happened on the lists and in real life was about that > Debian learned about your collaboration from a Debian press release. > > > As pointed out on this list, Debian and Ubuntu share a great deal. > > I wouldn't call that "share". > > > We have largely common package names (imagine what a difference that > > will make to practical discussions over IRC ;-)) > > Right, this makes it much easier for Ubuntu users to pester Debian > people with the problems that the Ubuntu community wasn't able to > solve by itself. > > > (most of the strongest Ubuntu > > contributors are or have been very strong Debian contributors too, > > yes, and have usually stopped doing their debian duties without > properly stepping down upon their engagement with Ubuntu. This has > greatly harmed Debian a few years ago when Ubuntu was still hatching, > and has obviously also helped Ubuntu in getting more momentum than > Debian since Ubuntu took privileges from Debian which slowed down > Debian a great deal. > > > and many new Debian maintainers have come to the project through > > Ubuntu) > > Yes. Ubuntu should think about the reason for Ubuntu people changing > over to Debian. > > > . When I look over the commentary on debian-devel and in debbugs and > > on #debian-devel, I see a lot of familiar names from Ubuntu, > > especially on the deep, hard problems that need solving at the core. > > >From new people that weren't hired over to Ubuntu from Debian? > > > So, practically, we would be in a good position to collaborate. > > Of course. Ubuntu _is_ Debian in a very big part. > > > I see mails > > on this list saying it would be easier and better for Debian to > > coordinate with distributions that I think would be almost *impossible* > > to work with practically, > > It is almost impossible to work with Ubuntu as soon as one doesn't agree. > > > How do I think it could work in practice? Well, if Debian and Ubuntu > > went ahead with the summit in December, where we reviewed plans for 2010 > > and identified opportunities to collaborate, I think we would get (a) > > several other smaller distributions to participate, and (b) several > > upstreams to participate. > > You're a true visionary. > > > A December summit is not about tying anybody's hands. It's about looking > > for opportunities, where they exist naturally, and communicating those > > more widely. > > At least Debian has epically failed in "wide communication" of this > decision by first putting out a press release before informing the > community itself. > > > First, there has been no secret cabal or skunkworks effort to influence > > Debian. > > Not? > > > As best I can tell, folks from both Debian and Ubuntu who have deep > > insight into release management established a shared interest in > > working together better, at many levels, and this was one idea that > > came forward. The fact that those discussions were open and ongoing > > was no secret > > It surely was. The Debian world outside of the Release Team didn't > know zilch. > > > - I wouldn't have talked about it in the media if it were! > > (Ironically, someone suggested that the fact that I was talking > > publicly about something in Debian implied there was a secret cabal. > > You were talking publicly about things that were happening inside > Debian that Debian didn't know of. > > > I have always tried to make sure that I speak regularly with the DPL - > > some DPL's have not responded to that at all, others have been happy to > > speak. Steve and I have spoken about every quarter, which is great, and > > we focus those conversations on ways we can make collaboration better. > > So you have better contact to the DPL than Debian itself has. A > disturbing thought. Are you going to run as DPL next term? > > > Finding teams we can introduce to one another. Finding ways to > > communicate better. > > I don't think that Debian needs to find ways to communicate with > Ubuntu. It needs to find ways to communicate with Debian. > > > In both cases, the individuals and teams concerned have a mandate from > > their organisations to think problems through and speak for the project. > > They have the mandate, but I consider it a courtesy to not exercise > that mandate without prior discussion for a decision _this_ important. > Debian failed to have this courtesy. > > > Large organisations can't work any other way. I was stunned when I saw > > the announcement of a "decision" because I know that Debian works by > > building steady consensus > > That's what I thought before July this year. > > > Second, this is not about Debian changing to meet the needs of Ubuntu. > > It isn't? > > > As I've said elsewhere, Ubuntu would be happy to reach a compromise if > > needed to work with Debian and others. > > Not necessary, Debian submitted to Ubuntu's demands immediately. Lucky > Ubuntu. > > > Alternatively, with Debian specifically, we can contribute > > resources to help Debian meet a stretch (or squeeze ;-)) goal. > > As you did in the past, for examply by hiring away half of the already > understaffed ftp team and not enouraging them to step back from their > Debian posts after reducing their time spent on Debian even more? > > > But most importantly, this whole thing will have it's best and biggest > > impact if it goes beyond Ubuntu and Debian. > > I don't think it will. > > > The debate on this list has mostly been about "Ubuntu vs Debian", > > which misses the real goal: let's send a signal to upstreams that > > they can participate and help shape the way end users will experience > > their software. > > KDE will most probably not shift their release schedules for two > distributions that ship GNOME as their default. > > > I see many mails on this list from people who are clearly absolutely > > certain in their minds that "Ubuntu is an evil thief of Debian's work". > > I am not one of these. I just think that Ubuntu doesn't give a lot of > the praise it gets for distributing "foolproof Linux" back to Debian. > And I am disturbed that Canonical/Ubuntu actually manages to get the > impression of a commericially supported Linux distribution along to > the commercial world, a discipline which Debian has epically failed in > the last ten years. But, again, not your fault. > > > I'm saddened that the loudest voices > > seem to be those who are vociferous in their opposition to Ubuntu, > > rather than those who are finding ways to make things better. > > Do you have an idea why this is so? > > > I'm saddened that a good idea - a sounder basis for collaboration, > > backed by real investment and effort - gets crushed on the rocks of > > hate from folks who do not make the bulk of the contribution. > > Do you propose that one can only voice his opinion if one maintains a > lot of important packages? > > > There are very good people, with long histories in Debian, who have > > pointed out the positive things that have come from Ubuntu. Listen to > > them > > And why not to the others? > > > Ubuntu is in a great position to help with big and deep changes that > > need to be made. > > Why doesn't Ubuntu simply do that? Why didn't Ubuntu do these things > in the past? > > > I stayed away from DebConf this year - the > > first time in six years - because I didn't want to be a flashpoint for > > division > > ... or because you knew there was a bombshell going to be placed? > > > To achieve anything together, we'll both need to work together, we'll > > need to make compromises or we'll need to contribute effort to the other > > side. > > Debian has always contributed effort to the other side, even before > before deciding to have freezes in a way that would allow Ubuntu to > always have more recent software in their LTS release than Debian has > in stable. > > > If the Debian community is willing to consider a December freeze, > > then Ubuntu (and Canonical) will commit resources to help Debian meet > > that goal. > > I will only believe this happening if I saw it. -- Eric Evans eevans@sym-link.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature