Hi. When I submitted my application to be considered as a TC member, it was with excitement, hoping to work together with great folks to learn from the strengths and weaknesses of past TC work. From the discussions I saw there seemed to be agreement both that there was really great technical work going on in the TC, but also that we'd like to find a way to do that work with less project-wide pain. In some of my messages I spoke of compassion. I was fairly open about the role I saw for the TC both on debian-vote and debian-project. I'd like to see people come to the TC earlier in the process. I hope that asking for help, especially from the TC will be viewed as a way to improve communication not as an escalation in an already poisoned process. I hope that we'll work with people to see other sides of an issue and to help them make decisions more than we work as an appeal board. Maintaining the power to resolve decisions and when necessary to rearrange who is maintaining a package is an important part of the TC. I would like to see us use that power as a way to promote understanding. I think it's important for us to value the work others do in the project. Having the TC step in and override a decision or seriously consider overriding a decision often leads to decreased motivation on the part of those whose decision is reviewed. On the other hand being able to contribute or to get issues one believes important considered also decreases motivation. I don't think the TC's job is to choose the technically best option before it. Instead, I think that the TC's job is to help Debian's technical processes run smoothly, maintaining reasonable technical integrity, and making sure that those who want to contribute are given a reasonable chance to do so. Here's an example that illustrates the difference. If some folks spend a bunch of time coming up with a valid technical solution, it's almost certainly better for Debian for the TC to encourage them than to decide on a better solution that undermines the time and effort spent. If a maintainer does great technical work, but won't communicate with others, it may be best for Debian for the TC to try and improve the situation, even if the results are not as great technically, while still being technically valid. The human factors of making our community work are as important as the technical factors in my view of the TC. If the above doesn't fit in with the TC's vision of itself, then I'm probably not a good fit. Obviously there are a lot of details to work through and a bunch of things to balance. When I submitted my application, I felt that a number of TC members were open to similar changes or at least changes somewhere in that space. However since submitting my application I've attended one of the IRC meetings and looked at the other minutes. I've also been following the discussion of bugs. my overall impression is that the above may be more of a stretch than the TC is looking for. Here are some specific examples of things that concerned me, although I'm more interested in the general alignment than any specific. In handling the menu system issue, there was a question of how to interact with the policy process and the claim that a rough consensus had emerged in the policy team. The TC seemed to value technical correctness more than the process. I think of how I'd feel in Charles's place. I spend a lot of time working on trying to build something people are happy with. We think we're done. Someone disagrees. I ask for review; I'm frustrated and disappointed that my work is being blocked. Perhaps I recognize Bill's frustration with a change he thinks is inadequately supported being adopted; perhaps I'm not able to see that. I ask for help, for a second opinion. Instead, what I get is a group of folks who decide they'll tell us what to do, without showing respect for the time and effort put in. I was particularly frustrated when I hear Steve say that consensus isn't important because policy is not a rough consensus process; if one person disagrees then there's not a consensus. I haven't verified Steve's claim. If true, perhaps that should be fixed. Regardless of whether that's true, the TC can consider what came before and can choose to value the effort of everyone involved in the policy process. Second issue: In discussion of the systemd resolution, I understand Don to be saying he believes evry issue brought before the TC needs to end up resolved by a resolution. I do recall a time when the TC was bad about dropping stuff on the floor, and I can understand why the TC several years ago started trying to make sure everything resulted in a resolution. However, there's a big difference between actively not not acting and dropping an item through inaction. Forcing everything to have a formal resolution (even if that is a formal resolution to take no action) really gets in the way of helping people out, building consensus, fostering communication. There are many times when it's really important to be able to say something like "I don't think we need anything more here; if folks disagree, speak up." If you end up being wrong when you make that claim, then perhaps something formal is required. I've gone back and read the constitution, and disagree with don that it requires a resolution. I think it may require a resolution to formally do anything as the TC and certainly requires a resolution to do anything binding as the TC (especially overrides). don's reading is consistent with the constitution, but I think more liberal readings that permit the TC the flexibility to do a good job are also consistent. Again, these issues are specifics that contributed to a general concern, and it's the general concern rather than the specifics I care about. Tone of the discussions also contributed to the concern that I may be off in a different direction. However, I've been unable to capture that concern about tone in a manner that I can share. In closing, I do not judge the value of any particular approach, nor am I interested in my approach being judged, although as always I welcome comments to ponder. To me this is more about determining whether we want similar enough things to work well together. There's no right answer here, no shame in choosing not to work together because we want different things. However, if what we want is similar enough, then I eagerly look forward to working on the TC. thanks for your understanding, --Sam
Attachment:
pgpLiOoPakGBL.pgp
Description: PGP signature