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

Re: Renewed appeal to the technical committee about the FransAndCo.Vs.Sven dispute

Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Renewed appeal to the technical committee about the FransAndCo.Vs.Sven dispute"):
> I am reluctant to ratify this resolution.  Although I'm largely in
> agreement, the only slight /potential/ good I see coming from this is that
> going forward, the technical committee might be the *one* authority in
> Debian that Sven doesn't try to browbeat into overriding Frans's decision.

The TC is not ideal for dealing with these kind of interpersonal
problems, because our procedure is rather cumbersome and particularly
because of the requirement for public discussion.

I added the sentence saying he shouldn't darken our door again because
otherwise he will, to no good effect.  We can't do anything else other
than recommend that the DPL please please please Do Something.  We
should not avoid making a decision just because it doesn't solve the
whole problem.

> BTW, there is one aspect of the current conflict that is under the TC's
> purview:  under §6.1.2, the technical committee decides in disputes over who
> the maintainer for a package should be.  [...]

As far as I can tell Sven hasn't said he wants to be the sole d-i
maintainer.  He hasn't said it to us, in any case.  (I don't think the
TC maintainership-shifting power should/could be used to create a
maintainership `team' against the wishes of some of the participants.)

We can deal with the maintainership question in the same resolution,
so I hereby propose this following resolution instead:

 1. We note that Sven Luther has a dispute with the debian-installer
    team; Sven feels that he should have access to the d-i svn

 2. We note that the d-i team, who manage that repository, disagree.

 3. Whether or not someone should be permitted commit access to a
    repository is a social and political matter.  Therefore we do not
    have the power to overrule the d-i team on this question.

 4. It is not clear to us whether Sven intends us to exercise our
    power under s6.1(2) to `[decide] who should be the maintainer for
    a package', for example, to make Sven the maintainer for d-i.
    Such a use of our powers would not be helpful in this case, and
    if Sven had requested it of us we would have refused.

 5. Nevertheless, we wish to state some opinions as we are
    empowered to do by s6.1(5) of the constitution:

 6. Sven:  Your behaviour leaves much to be desired.

    You should stop wasting everyone's time and energy with this
    campaign to be reinstated as a d-i committer.  Regardless of the
    merits of the original decision, by now it seems unlikely that
    anyone on the d-i team would find you a congenial colleague, and we
    can see good reasons for their decision to hold you at arm's

    Please do not contact the committee again on this matter.

 7. The Project Leader should delegate (to a group rather than to an
    individual, but perhaps to an existing group or groups) mediation
    and disciplinary powers, including the power to intervene
    informally, give formal advice and reprimands, rule on social
    disputes, and take disciplinary action short of expulsion.


Reply to: