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

Re: [CTTE #746578] libpam-systemd to switch alternate dependency ordering

]] Anthony Towns 

> On 17 November 2014 05:37, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:


>       I hope that he doesn't
>     actually view this TC override as an attack on the systemd maintainers. 
>     ​... this is the TC providing technical guidance when
>     asked to do so; and if the TC comes to a different conclusion than a
>     maintainer who is acting in good faith, that is not an attack on that
>     maintainer.
> The committee has five powers:
>  1. decide on technical policy
>  2. decide on overlapping jurisdictions
>  3. make decisions on a requestor's behalf
>  4. overrule developers
>  5. offer advice
> ​The tech ctte could've addressed this issue by providing policy
> guidance or by just offering advice, and assuming that the systemd
> maintainers would act on th​e advice or policy in good faith. Choosing
> to override the systemd maintainers was far from the most friendly
> available option.

Very much agreed, also,
https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2012/08/msg00016.html ; second-last
paragraph feels oddly appropriate.

> I don't think it's unfair to say that the technical committee is both
> the most powerful and least accountable group in Debian. Honestly I'd
> imagine most folks in Debian would expect anyone holding that level of
> power to act with a fairly high degree of caution, deliberation and,
> frankly, compassion for those who don't share those
> powers. Personally, I'd expect that power imbalance would imply an
> inverse courtesy imbalance -- that is, the technical committee members
> go out of their way to be considerate of their less-powerful
> co-developers, and tolerant of criticisms made about their actions.

I'm very happy to see your work on this (on -vote).  Thank you for that.
(The term limit work is, I believe, a first, crucial step.)

Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Reply to: