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

Re: IS hartmans a good fit for the TC

>>>>> "Don" == Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes:

    Don> On Wed, 04 Mar 2015, Sam Hartman wrote:
    >> 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.

    Don> I think this is something that we're all in agreement about; to
    Don> some degree, this is a consequence of the TC being historically
    Don> slow to act, and fear of the TC making decisions which neither
    Don> of the parties desire.

OK, it's really good to hear that my read that we were hoping to make
changes in this area is consistent with the sitting TC.
I think that's the really big point for me.

    >> 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.
    Don> [...]
    >> 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.
    Don> [...]
    >> 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.

    Don> The current state of this issue is that Keith is working with
    Don> the policy folks to find a consensus agreement. I agree that
    Don> the TC has been too slow to operate on this issue, but
    Don> consensus is the direction that we're headed in now. But as is
    Don> often the case, lack of free time is holding things up.

Actually both the specific issues I brought up are cases where I'm
 happy when I think about the TC decision, but where I have negative
 reactions when I think about steps along the way.
I didn't bring that up in my first mail because it was long enough and
to a real extent it doesn't matter what I  think about previous
Cudos to Keith though for working with this.

    >> However, there's a big difference between actively not not acting
    >> and dropping an item through inaction.

    Don> I don't mind if we decide to not exercise our powers in
    Don> resolving a particular issue, but I believe TC should vote to
    Don> resolve every issue which has been brought before it if the
    Don> submitter believes that there is still an issue.

I don't agree with that, although I'd probably agree with something
weaker that in many situations  boils down to the same thing.
However that's OK.
The TC has seen significant internal disagreement in the past and still
got  greate work done.
I respect where you're coming from and if  we find actual cases where
we disagree in practice we can try and work through it.

    Don> In the most recent systemd resolution, I felt (and still feel)
    Don> that doing what we did put the issue to rest, so everyone could
    Don> move on.

Sure.  You gave multiple reasons for calling for the vote, and the only
one that I was worried reading was that all issues required a

    >> 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.

    Don> Maybe there is some middle ground here. I personally don't
    Don> think there's an issue with people informally bringing an issue
    Don> to the TC to mediate or assist, or members of the TC going out
    Don> and helping, and resolving those issues without a formal
    Don> resolution.

    Don> I think in those cases, whoever brought the issue forth can
    Don> just say that it's been resolved, and we can continue on.

First, even if there weren't middle ground on this specific issue that
 probably wouldn't be a problem.
I'm delighted to hear the above.  I think that as we work through corner
cases in how to make that work  we'll find we can both improve the TC

I tend to believe that if there's someone really requesting a formal
resolution, then it's a good idea to give it.
I'm unclear on things like the df units discussion, but there wasn't
huge harm in that resolution even if I'm unclear on the benefits.

    Don> It's probably my personal bias speaking[1], but in some of
    Don> these cases, I'd still like to use the TC power to make
    Don> statements to publicly congratulate and recognize the efforts
    Don> of Debian contributors who resolve these issues through
    Don> communication and consensus building, and specifically point
    Don> out the consensus which they obtained.

Yeah, that sounds like a great idea too.
I'd be a lot happier with resolutions that looked like

The TC was asked to think about X. Here's how we understand the issue.
During the process, these fine folks started working together and it
looks like great progress is being made

The TC was asked to override the fubar maintainer.  We declined to do

Even though both resolutions might describe the same situation.

    Don> Admittedly, some of my desire to do that is to help show that
    Don> the TC also fosters this kind of problem solving.

I think that could be very valuable.

    >> To me this is more about determining whether we want similar
    >> enough things to work well together.

    Don> I think we all are interested in seeing Debian succeed, and
    Don> working together to make the best Free Software distribution we
    Don> can.

    Don> We may disagree on how best to do that, but the very fact that
    Don> you're willing to discuss, disagree, and still work together is
    Don> why I still support you joining the TC.


Reply to: