Re: Candidate questions/musings
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:24:08 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 12:50:26AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > No, the problem is that if you try to lead people you'll quickly
>> > get someone accusing you of, eg, trying to herd them like
>> > sheep. Or otherwise implying that you're a disrespectful fool,
>> > incapable of dealing with people. Or not transparent enough. Or
>> > too busy with bureaucracy. Or something else.
>> Pardon me. We seem to have gotten our wires corossed, probably
>> because I was not really thinking of the role you (or raul) played
>> in the non-free vote as leadership roles;
> Why not, exactly? Bruce isn't the only person who's ever exercised
> leadership in this project.
Because that is not how it came across to me. If your intent
was to be statesmanlike; I spologize for not seeing you in that
light.
>> I was quite as vehemently opposed to the non-free removal back in
>> 2000 when it first came up; I thought we had common cause. I
>> happened not to couch this in terms of leading and being a
>> follower.
>> I personally listened the arguments, and made up my own mid; not
>> necesarily following anyone's lead but my own.
> Listening to arguments is one way of following; presenting
> arguments, and proposing solutions is one way of leading. Keeping
Breathing is one way of leading and following, not very
relevant, but hey. I listen to all kinds of arguments from people,
moist of whom I would not remotely see as leaders.
Frankly, this is a red hgerring. Leaders may breathe, and
leaders may formulate arguments, but those are not by any means
sufficient qualities to be a leader.
> folks on track towards defining the problem and working out a
> solution is another way of leading -- you provided a fair bit of
> leadership on resolving the non-free issue too. Not all leadership
> need be or should be done gripping a gun.
Quite. But leadership is, in my opinion, way more than
formulating a cogent, internally consistent position on an issue --
it is even more than convincin other people of the merits of ones
position.
>> >> Traditionally, this is known as failure of leadershipt;
>> > Yes, it's traditional to talk about "failures of leadership" in
>> > Debian. How about we work out how to stop that happening, rather
>> > than just hoping we don't run out of folks to crucify?
>> Umm, I am not sure this is something I want to be involved in
>> solving, unless I was attempting to lead, which I have no great
>> desire to do. Good leaders are not made by potential followers. If
>> a good leader comes along, wonderful.
> Well no. If a good leader comes along, they get treated like
> everyone else: namely abused and criticised, and any objections to
> that treatment are casually dismissed with blase comments like "No
> good deed goes unpunished". That's a long way from wonderful.
I beg to differ. A good leader would not be treated like
anyone else -- wannabe ones who fail to rise head and shoulders above
the rest of us might.
I also think that a thin skin and running off all over in a
huff are not qualities one would like in leaders. Indeed, an ability
to deal with adverse conditions, and ability to be able to convince
initially recalcitrant potential followers and meld them into a
loyal constituency would be one of the defining characteristics of a
good leader.
>> > Do you want worthy leaders to follow?
>> Those are the only people I would follow -- but I have no great,
>> unsatisfied need to follow, if that is what you mean.
> You seem to be claiming to be pretty uninterested in leading, pretty
I do not think I have the patience to be a good leader.
> uninterested in following,
No, not interested in following mediocrity; Good leaders I
would.
> and pretty uninterested in doing anything to make it easier for
> other people who are interested in leading or following to do so
> within Debian.
I don't think leaders would need me to pave their way, and I
would not dream of making other people follow someone I would not. I
am surprised you think that would be a good thing.
> That ends up making it hard for Debian to do things that require
> people to actively work together -- having people who're just
I am by no means against cooperation and working together --
but we can do that as peers, and we do not have to be "lead" in order
to work together.
I reject the premise that I am sheep -- that without a leader,
we can't possible work together. If this belief is widespread, then
I do think we are doomed. This is not the project I joined -- what I
thiought I was a part of of a bunch of competent people who could
make up their own minds, and whoi had common cause to work together
on a free distribution of Linux, and who can tie our own shoe laces
without a leader telling us to work together now, like good
children.
> interested in their own little areas and who aren't either
> experienced in getting other people to support their changes, or
> aren't particularly good at finding compromises to support changes
> other people want made means you end up with a system that's a
> mismash of incompatible policies.
Why does a compromise need to be forced down our throats by a
leader? Why can't we, like reasonable folk, find our own compromises?
What does leadership have to do with putting together a working
groups of people?
>> Quite. Unless you have a bunch of followers, who cut you a lot of
>> slack, you need to convince people that what you are doing is the
>> right thing. Until people trust you to be a good leader, and
>> become good and loyal followers, you'll hear this call for
>> openness.
> Well, no: instead of the people who you've been working with
> complaining, you get a new bunch of people complaining instead. Is
There is always be some that complain; and that has been true
even for the greatest of leaders.
> there some value in having a continual stream of people complaining
> about things they don't have a great deal of knowledge about or
> experience with?
Perhaps not. But I see little value in suppressing complaints,
or sweeping them under the rug.
> The alternative is encouraging knowledgable people to complain when
> something that's actually bad is happening, and discouraging
> complaints and abuse at other times. Is there something particularly
> wrong with that as a goal? Is there some reason that it's so
> infeasible it's not worth trying to work out acceptable ways of
> achieving that?
Who decides when complaining is valid? Whose judgemnet would
you trust? Whose judgement can remain unbesmirched by the trapping os
this power?
>> I must say that I am not sure there are a whole lot of people that
>> have thus earned my trust in their judgement.
> Really? There aren't some 800 odd folks whose judgement you trust to
> maintain their packages? There aren't a whole bunch of folks listed
> http://www.debian.org/intro/organization who've earned your trust in
> their judgement?
Not really. Some. There is a difference between trusting
peeople to maintain their packages (and not push old ladies in front
of trains); and quite another to trust their judgement enough to
follow their lead.
I would expect any leader I follow to appreciate that
distinction.
>> >> Winning an election is rarely enough to satisfy these criteria.
>> > No, elections are meant to happen after you've found people
>> > you're willing to let lead you;
>> Oh. In that case, we should stop the proceedings right now.
> Uh, do you really think it's a good idea for the secretary to be
> saying things like that, even without your hat on, or sarcastically?
I would expect people to be able to discern when I am wearing
my secretaries hat, and when I speak as a developer. Yes, I suppoose
there is a judgement call involved (like, is the mail from the debian
project secretaries role based email? does the sig have the project
secretary info in there?); but for a self proclaimed leader-like
person, that is the kinda judgement call I expect you to be able to
make at the very least.
Indeed, I do not take kindly to these kionds of efforts to
muzzle people who wear official hats; to take a leaf out of your
book, this would make people less likely to open themselves to
censorship by taking on official duties for the project.
You elided this bit:
>> > No, elections are meant to happen after you've found people you're
>> > willing to let lead you;
Elections are, especially for the DPL, when we elect to try
out a particular persons view about how a DPL exercises the duties in
the constitution. I respect the office, and I would try to follow
what the DPL says for the next 12 months -- but that does not mean I
am a ``follower'' for the next year. I still exercise my own
judgement on all issues.
>> > and to allow us all to choose a common direction to travel in, in
>> > spite of having different destinations at the top of our
>> > preferences.
>> I see. Not the way I see elections and voting, but what ever you
>> say.
> How about you just tell me how you see elections and voting if you
> disagree with me, rather than acting upset and making me beg for
> your understanding?
I am not upset. Merely tired. How does the expression go? As
you have so eloquently put it in the past, "Bored now. *Yawn*.
> If you feel that voting's main purpose isn't to allow us to choice
> one particular direction out of multiple possibilities, what do you
> think it is?
Non DPL election do tend to allow us to determine what the
majority wants to do. Not necesarily ideal, nor does it lead us to
optimal solution, does suffer from the tyranny of the majority, but
the best we have so far for non technical issues.
>> > And in spite of us trying to be "the Universal Operating System",
>> > there're very few opinions which are held universally. If we're
>> > going to get anywhere, we need to work to resolve issues that we,
>> > personally, might not see as problems.
>> I personally have never been quite convinced of the universal os
>> vision thang.
> Really? You've often said your goal is to make Debian the best OS
> for you, personally. Repeating that philosophy 800 times over a
> fairly diverse group -- or many thousands if you count the various
> contributions non-developers make as well -- a universal operating
> system seems the obvious and only possible outcome to me.
We differ again. The developers are a self selecting group,
and compared to the people I saw at the social in the holllow the
other day, a very narrow, targeted, small subset of all the people
out there. My grandma would certainly not feel at home.
The diversity is not really all that diverse -- and calling
this group a "universal representative slice" is about as arrogant as
the "world Series" purports to represent the world.
Its just a judgement thing.
>> > That includes concerns about lack of leadership, it includes
>> > concerns about sexism in Debian, and it includes concerns about
>> > unreasonable conduct on mailing lists.
>> Would be nice, yes.
> Would it be nice, or are you willing to do something about it?
Sure. Add it in there amongst universal brotherhood, peace on
earth, no hungry children, and other nice to have things on my todo
list. I am far more likely to modify my own behaviour to not be
sexist, trade recies for deep frying babies, and so on.
>> > Now, I don't believe I've attempted to dictate anything on this
>> > issue, and I've spent a lot of effort trying to make sure that we
>> > can come to a conclusion -- all the way from working through the
>> > voting system changes needed to come to a conclusion on this
>> Quite. A number of people (Raul comes to mind, and even yours truly
>> contributed a modicum of work on these points).
> Certainly. Does good leadership mean ignoring anything anyone else
> thinks? Does it mean not working with anyone else? Does it mean
> drawing a firm line between leaders and followers, and making sure
> all the information goes one way?
No.
>> >> Were it not for you stupid people out there not willing to be my
>> >> followers, I would be the supreme god-king out there.
>> I should have added a smiley there.
>> > Odd, I seem to recall explicitly pointing out that we need to
>> > protect ourselves from blindly following stupid whims; and I seem
>> > to recall explicitly listing some of the bad ideas Bruce had.
>> Right.
> Then why rail against straw men scenarios that I've already agreed
> need to be avoided?
I did not think I was railing against strawmen. However, I
shall attempt to restrict my jousts against them in the future.
>> >> Someone who can come up with ideas, visions, and solutions that
>> >> further the agendas of most people, enough so we go along with
>> >> tangential tasks?
>> > Think I've done that too.
>> Umm. Well, for the sake of amity, let us leave it at that.
> Are you trying to say that I've never come up with any ideas, any
> visions or any solutions that've furthered Debian's agenda? Heck,
> limit it to the non-free debate if you like.
Let us just say, that in my opinion, your track record has
been mixed. Not as bad as most, but not as good as it could be.
> Is your opinion of my efforts really that low that anything you can
> honestly say would destroy any chance we currently have of working
> together? Is there anything else I could assume from your lack of
> agreement there?
I would much rather not let this discussion sink into
petty little personal barbs (ahem, I need to be less cantankerous)
>> > So why do you feel the need to accuse me of wanting to treat
>> > everyone else in the project as sheep to be herded with a few
>> > whistles and some well trained kelpies?
>> Oh, I did not so mean to accuse you, and I apologize f that is what
>> you got out of my mail. It had not occurred to me that you were
>> speaking from personal experience when you were talking about the
>> travails of leadership in Debian (I was actually thinking of Bruces
>> Fiat's when I wrote that).
> It's no good focussing so intently on avoiding stepping into some
> mud that you walk into the path of an oncoming bus. That applies to
> both people who want to avoid rudderless inactivity and people who
> want to avoid foolish decisions being made with lack of oversight.
Uhhh, I guess.
>> > If it were the person, we'd have simply found another to fill the
>> > same role, without the same drawbacks. That we haven't indicates
>> > it's not the person, but the environment.
>> The environment did not cause Bruce'shissy fits. And the fact that
>> no one else has thrown quite the same hissy fits seems to indicate
>> that it was indeed not the environment:
> Really? Here's the claim: that good leaders get beaten into the
> ground by the project. That's a claim about a fault in the
> environment. The implication from that is that good leaders who
> don't have incredibly thick skins won't participate in the first
> place, or, if they do, will quit in disgust (or throw a hissy fit,
> if you prefer). That in turn implies we either won't have much good
> leadership -- since there's no particular reason to think good
> leaders will be particularly willing to put up with abuse -- or
> we'll have good leadership accompanied by hissy fits.
Ok. That is the claim. I don't think it has been proven yet.
> Pointing out we don't have many hissy fits is half the case, but
> it's only half. The other half you need to demonstrate is that we
> have lots of good leadership anyway.
Or to prove we ever had good leadership.
> Here's some things to think about: we're two versions behind wrt the
> FHS, other distros (SuSE at least) have implemented /srv while
> Debian hasn't, we've been struggling to provide good support for the
> latest kernel in both the last release and the release we're working
> on now, or that we're still unable to offer a live CD of our own in
> spite of their utility to our users and in spite of other groups
> being able to create Debian-based live CDs.
Seems like we need do'ers, not leaders. Add tro that list
SELinux support -- which is something I am gearing up to work on (I
have been talking about working on it for a good six months now).
> None of those things are crimes, and there's no need to find people
> to blame for them, or any need for guilt or defensiveness about
> them, but aren't they areas in which Debian should be leading rather
> than trailing?
We can only lead if there are people who have made things
work. Not a lack of leadership.
> Is it really unreasonable to consider Debian lacking in leadership
> in a fair range of areas?
Yes.
>> had it been, bdale and wichert and tbm ought to have been deleting
>> archives right and left and stomping off in fits of pique.
> Either that would be happening, or people would be complaining about
> not seeing as much activity from them as they'd like.
I prefer not much activity to having to recover mail archives.
>> Oooh, my cantankerousness. No, I don't suffer from such hubris. Me,
>> I am just a poor lowly developer;
> Yes, your cantankerousness; I can't think of a word that better fits
> a developer that's been around since the dawn of time, who's on the
> tech ctte and has been the lead policy maintainer for years, yet who
> hams it up as a "poor lowly developer" when he disagrees with
> something. You're a grand ol' codger, who formed his opinions in the
> mists of time and who'll stubbornly stand by them come rain or
> shine. I mean that entirely affectionately -- stubborn and
> consistent are the same side of the same coin.
I have no special privileges in this project. I know no root
passwords. I do not have admin privileges. I do not have accounts on
restricted machines. I can not lock people out of mailing lists, or
the bts, or anything. The trecg ctte is moribud.
I do not abuse the one official hat I have, of a
secretary. (And tat is not a post I clig to -- I would be happy to
resign that post if asked by any DPL or even a quorum of DD's).
>> > In [3] you personally apologised for the project's aggressive
>> > response to Helen Faulkner's suggestions. Are you, personally,
>> > willing to make good on that apology and try to find a mutually
>> > acceptable outcome on this issue without implying, eg, that
>> > people who disagree with you are trying to be dictators?
>> Strawman. Leading people in directions they do not wish to be lead
>> requires force; hence the term dictator.
> Yes, that is a strawman. I've already said I'm not interested in
> having the project be led to bad destinations, and I've also said
> nothing about trying to force people to accept that leadership. So
> how about not assuming I'm trying to be dictatorial as well as not
> calling me a wannabe dictator?
You are complaining about how Debian mistrerats leaders;
unless you are talking about lone outliers and crank hecklers (which
are hard to totally do away with), the only relevant case would be if
the leader was totally at odds with the desires of the majority.
What is it that you are complaining about? That there are a
few abusive hecklers who do not represent the project in abusing the
leaders, or that the project, by and large, is doing the abusing? If
the former, the leaders need have thicker skins, if the latter, then
that is a misaligment of objectives I do not think we should be
trying to do away with.
>> I think you do need to stop thinking it is all about you:
> I don't think it's remotely about me; I use myself as an example
> because I'm particularly familiar with the details of those cases,
> and because -- if I'm correct and people are inclined to be
> offensive towards examples of leadership -- it helps avoid anyone
> else catching the flak that goes with being identified as a leader
> within Debian; being called a dictator or a narcissist or sexist or
> whatever other slurs people come up with.
I don't believe people are particualrily abrasive towards
examples of leadership. And, as in most cases of real life, people in
public positions are subject to more intense scrutiny, and are
subject to more flak than joe sixpack in podunsky.
>> I was not attacking your purported leadership; it causes you to go
>> off putting all kinds of weird chips on your shoulder.
> Really? What weird chips would those be, exactly? The only chips I
> can think of is being offended at being called a hypocrite, or a
> dictator, or having people start threads on how incompetent I am. I
> don't think those are particularly weird chips to have.
I did not do any of these things, and yet, here you are,
aggressively with a chip on your shoulder.
>> You were ranting about how people wanting to lead were abused for
>> their efforts, and brought forth the example of previous leaders,
>> notedly Bruce. I recall his remark about laoding for Bear and going
>> for microsoft, whereas most of the rest of us wanted to just
>> improve Debian, and were not interested in the marketing tactics
>> and asking "How high?" when the users said jump that Bruce insisted
>> were required for shooting said bear. It really isn't all about
>> you.
> That's all you recall? I wasn't around for much more than the end,
> but google knows all. There's things like:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/1997/debian-policy-199710/msg00258.html
> -- Dave Cinege goes crazy
Even our own Craig Sanders came down like a ton of bricks on
that one:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/1997/debian-policy-199710/msg00276.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/1997/debian-policy-199710/msg00308.html
> -- Let's add term limits to kick Bruce out eventually anyway
http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/1997/debian-policy-199710/msg00309.html
> Or things like:
> http://lists.debian.org/deity/1998/deity-199803/msg00096.html
This is my response to Bruce apologizing for me not saying
"How High" when some idiot asked me to jump since he was a user and
obviously I was meant to kowotw and lick his boots.
> following:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/debian-devel-199803/msg01157.html
I really like that one.
>> > Would that not be a reasonable first step towards ensuring you
>> > don't have cause to make a similar apology in the future?
>> Whee--yooo-weee. If you notice, it was not my conduct I needed to
>> apologize for before.
> No, it wasn't. But it's your conduct that you've got control of,
> it's your conduct that you can change in ways that'll improve
> Debian, either directly or by example.
I have not often acted in a fashion I have felt a great need
to apologize for, in the past.
>> I hope you are not considering doing something I shall have to
>> apologize to others for in the future.
> So how about talking about what we -- you and I -- can do that would
> help resolve some of these problems that have been identified by
> ourselves and others, rather than coming up with clever ways of
> insulting each other that we can't call each other on, or making
> sure we avoid interpreting each others' comments in a positive
> light?
Stop complaining about how big bad ugly the debian wolf is,
and get down and work on things? I have always appreciated the work
you do as a RM, and the whole testing infrastructure.
I guess part of the problem is that I do not see the need for
a "Beloved Leader" we all follow around.
> If I'm offending you, does it help anyone for you to return the
> disfavour?
Oh, did I call you cantankerous? Or make this discussion
personal; in any way, other than perhaps pointing out that I do not
wish to follow you, or most other people who seem to spring up trying
to order me about?
> Does it help anyone to remain courteous and on-topic in spite of
> provocation, either deliberate or accidental? Wouldn't that both
I would think so. What I impolite in hoping that you are not
considering action I would consider inappropriate (since you have
already descended to personalities by labelling me cantankerous?)
> make it easier for us to create a great distribution, and provide an
> environment that's less rambunctious, and consequently more
> attractive to potential developers like Helen? Aren't those goals we
> can agree on?
Well, how about we start small, and not call each other names, hmmm?
manoj
--
If he is unsettled in mind, does not know the true Teaching, and has
lost his peace of mind, a man's wisdom does not come to fulfilment. 38
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: