Re: Let's Stop Getting Torn Apart by Disagreement: Concerns about the Technical Committee
Dear Russ, dear Sam, dear people involved with Debian,
Russ Allbery - 28.10.17, 16:13:
> Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> writes:
> > I always found that just focusing on the technical aspects of the Init
> > system discussion left out… everything else. Even the issue in itself
> > was not purely technical, although back then I had the a feeling that
> > almost no one agreed with me that it was not. Just focusing on purely
> > technical means in that discussion was in my eyes harmful in itself.
>
> Well, I agreed, and agree, with you that the issue was not purely
> technical, and spent a substantial amount of time, effort, and writeup
> energy on discussing the non-technical issues. Your description bears
> very little resemblence to the process I was part of.
As always perceptions of different people are different…
> I think it's really important to not oversimplify past discussions. We're
> in danger of learning the wrong lessons from them.
>
> One of the reasons why the systemd discussion was so painful was precisely
> that it could *not* be discussed at a level of purely technical details,
> and we all knew it. […]
My impression from what I read of the discussion was exactly as I described…
so I did not simplify it by conscious choice…
however I do not claim having read all of it. I also do not claim to remember
all that I read. It was a *ton* of mails back then and at one point there was
what I received as moderation but apparently was not meant as one by Don, and
I decided I could not bear this any longer. I decided to let go of it as best
as I can. I did not read any of the mails past that point in time.
So yes, I may have simplified it.
> There wasn't *anything* "left out" of that discussion.
In my opinion this is a pretty bold statement.
If everyone has been heard, noticed, felt and valued, if everything has been
covered, then why are we discussing it… yet again now?
If the conflict resolution process proceeded to its completion, there is no
reason to.
Moving in circles, as I had the impression the discussion moved in back then
is not proceeding to its completion. Its the attribute of a circle that I can
walk its outline forever especially when I do not notice that I am doing so.
So is it merely me wanting badly to have a problem again – or Sam wanting to?
Or, is there still something left to be noticed, welcomed, embraced and let go
of? Is there still something that you, understandably, deny by not wanting to
have that problem again? Only you can answer that question by noticing what
you feel, so I don´t even try to. Also its not only a question you can choose
to ask, but one everyone can choose to ask, including myself.
Each one of us can do this work on his or her own. And I am certainly willing
to.
I certainly think that the CTTE process can be improved upon. Is it bad? I do
not know and does it really matter to decide? I am sure everyone involved is
doing their best. We always do.
Can it be improved upon? Yes, is my answer.
I trust to find the answer as to how within me. I may share it when I find it
at a later time, if its still important to share it then.
One part of an answer for me is within the question I asked here implicitly:
Does the everyone involved with CTTE process drive conflict resolution
processes to their completion?
Or does someone or a group of people decide to prematurely stop it cause they,
again, understandably, can not bear it anymore and want to get rid of it? If
so, what change in how I see a conflict can help me to move beyond?
And can I let go whether moving beyond would be superhuman or not? What is
human anyway? Am I my human experience?
I let go of any desire to change things now as I just catched myself of
holding onto it. In the end I am still with the Debian project. I just did a
new version of fio package. And I keep myself somewhat informed about what
people do in the Devuan project as well. So what happens if I just accept
things as they are, just for now?
Thanks,
--
Martin
Reply to: