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

IS hartmans a good fit for the TC


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
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

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,


Attachment: pgpLiOoPakGBL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: