Bug#741573: Two menu systems
>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
Steve> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:27:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Thanks for bringing this issue back to the question that was
>> brought to the TC.
>> The discussion so far on this bug has focused on discussing what
>> the right menu policy is for Debian.
>> That, however was not the question that was brought to the TC.
Steve> It is my understanding that this is exactly the question that
Steve> has been referred to the TC, because the default policy
Steve> process only works when there is a consensus - and there is
Steve> not a consensus here.
It's my understanding of whether there is a consensus was in debate.
Russ believed (and made a call) that there was a consensus.
If the TC looks at the discussion and concludes that "no, nope not a
consensus there," then I'll be entirely happy with the sort of
discussions the TC is happening now.
Interestingly, from some side comments Ian has made I actually suspect
he's looked enough that he at least has come to the conclusion that "no,
not a consensus here," but he's never said that.
I'd feel a lot happier if some TC members would actually state opinions
on whether as Bill claimed there are substantial non-addressed issues
brought up in the policy process.
If so, then deciding on the base issue makes sense.
If, as Russ claimed, a consensus was reached in a properly conducted
policy process, then I strongly disagree with the approach the TC is
taking. I think it creates significant harm for the project as a whole
when the TC does not generally respect the processes and work of the
rest of the project.
In this particular instance it's really frustrating to those who spent a
long time in the policy discussion and who believed they had reached a
conclusion. Having been in similar situations in the past it is
frustrating when someone comes into review things and does not respect
the time and energy. Why should I participate in discussions in the
future trying to find and build a compromise if those discussions will
ultimately be overruled by a body who will not work with them? It tends
to create feelings of frustration and powerlessness rather than feelings
of pride and ownership when we think about our work.
Respecting the time and energy doesn't mean agreeing with the result.
It does mean taking the time to understand the result. Having been in
similar situations I felt a lot better when my work was reviewed and
someone came along, carefully considered the discussion and concluded
that we hadn't actually reached a consensus. At least they respected
our work enough to evaluate it. We all participate enough in technical
work that we know we'll be wrong. Wrong is OK; not worth being listened
to promotes veryp negative feelings.
So, if you've reviewed this enough to support Bill's claim that there
isn't a consensus because there are substantial objections raised in the
discussions and not addressed, then please say that. If you have not
reviewed things sufficiently to make that conclusion, then I ask you and
the rest of the TC to take sufficient steps that such a review happen.
Reply to: