Re: Technical committee mails ?
On 18 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Dale> On 18 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> >>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <email@example.com> writes:
> Ian> I propose the following resolution:
> >> I object, on the grounds that it far exceeds what we have been
> >> asked to do in this instance. Policy creation mechanisms inplace can
> >> handle the rest of the FHS transition quite well, without us poking
> >> our nose where it is not wanted.
> Dale> Hold on Manoj. Nobody is "poking our nose where it is not wanted".
> You broaden the scope of this resolution to include the whole
> FHS move, I assure you we are poking our oses where we are not
> wanted. We have been asked to decide how to do a *part* of the FHS
> move -- and we should stick to answering that.
Wicherts suggestion to the developers did not restrict the halt on moving
to the FHS to just this one issue. He said quite clearly (though I admit
to possibly missing some subtlety in his posting) that we should roll back
the FHS move, not just a small part of it.
> Dale> You came to the committee with a problem. By our constitution,
> Dale> you will be forced to accept whatever this committee decides,
> Rubbish. If this committee broadens the scope of the technical
> advice to include the whole FHS move, that resolution shall be
> immediately put on hold. I have more than the 10 people required to
> do so. So get off your omnipotent committee shall decide all there is
> to decide bit.
So, you would use the same mechanism (the 10 person rule) to impeed a
properly decided issue. Wasn't one of your complaints about how the Policy
group got in this mess, that they have a 4 person rule that was exercised
"by mistake", and now couldn't be revoked? Threats don't become you.
Yes, you _do_ have political recourse. My intent was to suggest that it
was disingenuous to demand a decission from us and then declare that some
decissions are not in our venue.
> The committee has not been asked to rule on all the FHS
> move. Only a subsection of that.
That was your sepecific request. Others have asked for a broader
> Dale> and without Ian's proposal we have no reasonable path to a
> Dale> decission.
> Wrong again. You yourself made a second proposal -- by joey
> hess, I believe.
Oh come on Manoj, I agreed at the posting that it probably did not address
the problems that the symlink farm was intended to address, and you agreed
with me. I got the message that the proposal was unacceptable in this
> Dale> You continue to insist that this fiasco has nothing to do with
> Dale> the current policy about FHS, while I have previously argued
> Dale> that it has everything to do with it, and Ian's proposal
> Dale> suggests that he agrees with me.
> Frankly, I don't care if you think that the policy group, the
> schooll board of kansas, or the US senate are wrong. You have not
> been asked to comment (as the tech ctte -- you have a right to
> indivivual opinions, of course). The rest of the FHS move is going
> over smoothly -- we have a means of handling /var/mail, and other
> issues are being resolved.
So? Why is the policy group equivalent to the school board of Kansas? If
the are, why are any of us in the Debian group paying any attention to
> Dale> While I am always willing to admit to being an idiot, I know
> Dale> Ian well enough to know that he is far from idiotic. I have
> He would be the first to admit that he not immune from being
> wrong either -- but that is not relevant.
Then what is? Since when is the correctness of a proposal not relevant?
> Dale> previously submitted that the policy group put the cart before
> Dale> the horse by passing the current policy about the FHS before
> Dale> detailing how the changes from current policy would be
> Dale> accomplished. Your refusal to accept this idea doesn't convice
> Dale> me that you are right and I am wrong.
> Fine. Go to the polocy group and get things changed.
Sorry, I refused to accept that position when you formed the group and you
have no power to force me into that quagmire now.
> Dale> Before you get totally frustrated with "process" and throw up
> Dale> your hands in disgust, do whatever calms you, and try to get
> Dale> some perspective on what is going on.
> Dale> You have insisted that policy is correct to require FHS
> Dale> compliance and that no "details" are required to make this
> Dale> assertion, as the FHS itself provides the details. I say
> Dale> bunk. The FHS says how things _will_ be under the standard, and
> Dale> while it may give rational for the changes from previous
> Dale> standards, there are no "details" about just how the transition
> Dale> should be made. If there were, you would not be here trying to
> Dale> gain acceptance for your proposed "details", they would be
> Dale> spelled out chaper and verse in the FHS, and could simply be
> Dale> sited.
> The policy group shall come out with an amended policy that
> fills in more details. The tech ctte has not been invited to resolve
> other issues. You may not like how that body works, but unless there
> is a problem, the tech ctte has no right to butt in.
If the policy group seems capably of resolving these details, then why are
you coming to us in the first place. I clearly have misundersood what you
are trying to say here, so I will resort to your tactics and just say,
"This is not relevant."
> Unless you can show me how rolling the other FHS changes back
> helps in resolving the /usr/doc move, I shall remain opposed.
Which is your right.
> >> Shall we stick to the topic at hand, then, and not go and try
> >> and take on a transitiohn where the peoiple in charge have asked for
> >> no help?
> Dale> But you _have_ asked for help. You can't simply say, well I only want help
> Dale> if it comes to me in a specific form.
> I can say I only need help in one thing. Just because I ask
> for help on one issue does not mean that the tech ctte comes in and
> takes over evrythig, and one may as well dissolve the policy group.
I don't see that as being what is happening here. Reasonable people are
trying reasonable alternatives. If you have been this inflexable in your
position within the policy group, it is understandable why you haven't
gotten as much support as you believe the idea deserves.
> Back off.
You're talking to yourself as well as me here. You _are_ a party to this
> Dale> Ian's proposal _is_ a fix for the current problem. I realise it
> Dale> isn't what you think is the right thing to do, but that's
> Dale> life. "You can't always get what you want"(RS).
> It is a mad grab for control. At best, I saw: roll back all
> FHS relkated changes, even the oines that have been succesfully
> accomplished, cause we on hihg say you dod not pay homage to the
> right method.
Your typing here displays the level of adrenalin coursing through your
veins. (I know because I start to get dislexic in my typing under those
Please stop assuming that since someone doesn't agree with you, that they
are trying to gain some power over you or this group. Such is simply not
the case, and if you were calmer about this you would admit that we are
all friends here, trying to do whats best.
> Poewr corrupts. No way should this ctte have that power.
And it doesn't.
> Dale> I believe I have made myself pretty clear hear, so, although I
> Dale> will not comment on the rest of your gripes directly, I feel
> Dale> that they all fall into the same catagory as the previous
> Dale> commented sections. I _don't_ agree with much of what you said
> Dale> later in your posting.
Sarcasm noted ;-)
> Dale> Sorry this doesn't meet with your approval, but I hope you can
> Dale> be adult about it and not simply throw a tantrum.
> You have not offered one iota of reason why we are rollig back
> succesful changes, and broadening the scope of this action beyond the
> /usr/doc move.
No, I haven't, that is not my job, and I thought that Ian's proposal had
lots of good reasoning behind it.
> Give me a reson why we should be in charge of the whole move,
> when the mechanisms in place seem to be working.
I'm not sure I agree that we necessarily should repeal the whole move.
Why don't you try using your position on this committee in a constructive
way, and propose an ammendment to Ian's proposal that limits the rollback
to only the /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc transition. I suspect that such an
ammendment might be acceptable to Ian. It certainly would be acceptable to
> "This isn't brain surgery; it's just television." David Letterman
This isn't television, it's software development. Sometimes harder than
brain surgery, sometimes easier, but definately not television.
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-