[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Technical committee mails ?

>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:

 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. 

 Dale> So, you would use the same mechanism (the 10 person rule) to
 Dale> impeed a properly decided issue. Wasn't one `of your complaints
 Dale> about how the Policy group got in this mess, that they have a 4
 Dale> person rule that was exercised "by mistake", and now couldn't
 Dale> be revoked? Threats don't become you.

        This was not a threat. This was a response to your ``you shall
 be forced to accept our solution, no matter how flawed it is''

 Dale> Yes, you _do_ have political recourse. My intent was to suggest
 Dale> that it was disingenuous to demand a decission from us and then
 Dale> declare that some decissions are not in our venue.

        Asking for a decision in one small area, and havin tht e
 committee decide to undertake all related issues, and roll back
 decisions and progress that have already been made is *not*

 >> The committee has not been asked to rule on all the FHS
 >> move. Only a subsection of that.

 Dale> That was your sepecific request. Others have asked for a broader
 Dale> decission.

        Who has asked for a broader solution? Is Ian's proposal one
 which does that? Then it does not address the same problem domain as
 the symlink proposal, and hence we have the same issue with that --
 there are o other proposals that address similar problem domains. 

 Dale> and without Ian's proposal we have no reasonable path to a
 Dale> decission.

        Since Ian's proposal changes the problem domain, we still do
 not have a ``reasonable path to a decission.''

 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.

 Dale> So? Why is the policy group equivalent to the school board of
 Dale> Kansas? If the are, why are any of us in the Debian group
 Dale> paying any attention to them?

        They are similar in that both are orrelevant to the problem we
 are asked to solve; namely, how to move /usr/doc to
 /usr/share/doc. Complaining about kansas or the policy groups
 workings is straying from the topic at hand.

 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.
 Dale> Then what is? Since when is the correctness of a proposal not relevant?

        The irrelevance here is how idiotic, or otherwise, you and ian
 are, or are not.

 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.        

 Dale> Sorry, I refused to accept that position when you formed the
 Dale> group and you have no power to force me into that quagmire now.

        If you are not willing to volunteer in the policy group, stop
 whinig about how we work. We decided to make a sweeping change,
 acknowledging that details would be worked out in future decisions
 and amendments. A lot of details are so being worked on. One of them
 we fail to reach a conse4nsus: in my eyes, that doers not damn how we
 coose to work, and this cttes opinion on how we work was neither
 solicited, nor welcome, at this point, seeing that it is unlikely to
 be constructive. 

 >> 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.
 Dale> If the policy group seems capably of resolving these details,
 Dale> then why are you coming to us in the first place.

        Oh, fuck. You insist on making this personal. If the ctte is
 going to be so stuck up on how these people came running to them for
 help, I shall withdraw the proposal. There. The symlink proposal is
 now withdrawn.

 Dale> I clearly have misundersood what you are trying to say here, so
 Dale> I will resort to your tactics and just say, "This is not
 Dale> relevant."

        That does explain your arguments. When you do not understand
 anything, you say it is not relevant. Great.

 Dale> But you _have_ asked for help. You can't simply say, well I
 Dale> only want help if it comes to me in a specific form.

        Now that I have unasked, I guess this is all ok. 
 >> 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.
 Dale> I don't see that as being what is happening here. Reasonable
 Dale> people are trying reasonable alternatives. If you have been
 Dale> this inflexable in your position within the policy group, it is
 Dale> understandable why you haven't gotten as much support as you
 Dale> believe the idea deserves.

        Again, making the proposals personal. If indeed personalities
 are this important to you in a technical decision, I think you should
 reexamine that. 

 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.

 Dale> Please stop assuming that since someone doesn't agree with you,
 Dale> that they are trying to gain some power over you or this
 Dale> group. Such is simply not the case, and if you were calmer

        That is quite stupid, dale. It is ot disagreement that makes
 me think it is a power grab. It is the expansion of the problem
 domain that makes it so. It is not a different ``form''; it goes from
 trying to decide how to resolve a subset of the FHS move to suddenly
 over ruling a working solution for all the other changes that have
 already beeen instituted, just cause we have the power to do so.

 >> 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. 

 Dale> No, I haven't, that is not my job, and I thought that Ian's proposal had
 Dale> lots of good reasoning behind it.

        What reasons? He disagreed with the way that the policy group
 went about doing the move (which is his right). However, rolling back
 decisions that are working, or are being resolved elsewhere, has no
 justification in the proposal.

        Just because the ctte members do not like the way the policy
 group works does not mena the ctte can just override that group.

 >> Give me a reson why we should be in charge of the whole move,
 >> when the mechanisms in place seem to be working.
 Dale> I'm not sure I agree that we necessarily should repeal the whole move.

 Dale> Why don't you try using your position on this committee in a
 Dale> constructive way, and propose an ammendment to Ian's proposal
 Dale> that limits the rollback to only the /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc
 Dale> transition. I suspect that such an ammendment might be
 Dale> acceptable to Ian. It certainly would be acceptable to me.

        Because I think even that is a mistake. Oh, probably a lesser
 one. I'll think about that. Offering an amendment that still creates
 a proposal I won't support seems so -- tacky, but this whole mess is
 a lot of unpalatable alternatives anyway.


 Dave Barry Your digestive system is your body's Fun House, whereby
 food goes on a long, dark, scary ride, taking all kinds of unexpected
 twists and turns, being attacked by vicious secretions along the way,
 and not knowing until the last minute whether it will be turned into
 a useful body part or ejected into the Dark Hole by Mister
 Sphincter. We Americans live in a nation where the medical-care
 system is second to none in the world, unless you count maybe 25 or
 30 little scuzzball countries like Scotland that we could vaporize in
 seconds if we felt like it.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Reply to: