Re: Call for vote: Impeachment of the president [was: Re: new maintainers]
On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Dominik Kubla wrote:
> >>>>> Dale Scheetz writes:
>
> >> 1. Who entitled you to shift the basic policy of the project?
>
> > Determining a method for validating new maintainers has been
> > discussed, off and on for some time now. The above stated position
> > and problems are not a "shift" in policy as much as an attempt to
> > implement some.
>
> There was discussion, right but he said he had started to turn
> developers away because the just wanted to package a game.
As I understood Bruce's comments (and they were comments. This was a
continuation of the discussion, not a dictatorial statement) his concerns
were that we had not yet come up with a method for validating new
maintainers and was beginning to feel the need to start putting off new
maintainers. He also expressed the idea that packaging a game was not
necessarily qualification for becoming a package maintainer. I happen to
disagree with this criterion, as others have said, this is a good way to
figure out the packaging system without dammaging important system
functionality, and games tend to be simpler to package, so it's a good
starting point. I think that, as suggested, another method for accepting
new maintainers might include the requirement that they take on at least
one "orphaned package".
All of these are good ideas that can, with continued discussion be worked
into an effective policy.
> That there
> has to be a distinction of developers based on what they package has
> never been proposed and i say he overstep the boundaries of his office
> and is way out of line.
Why is it that Bruce doesn't get the opportunity to express his ideas
without being flamed for dictatorial behavior?
>
> > The board is currently charged with "determining a framework for
> > decision making" in the form of a corporation that can act as an
> > umbrella under which the Debian Development Project can operate. The
> > board may be empowered by this framework to make policy decisions,
> > however, I would hope that that framework includes the membership
> > at-large in the decision making process. Currently the board has
> > given this power to Bruce when it pertains to the day to day
> > operation of the project.
>
> Which he said he has turned over to Dan Quinlan. All this shifting of
> power is doing nothing but setting up smoke screens. Who is
> responsible for what? And where does their responsibility end? I am
> sick of this.
The board is kept fully aware of "who has been assigned to what". At some
point, when this finally gets "codified" there will be a document that
details each officer's duties and responsibilities, available for public
viewing so that everyone will know who these people are and what they are
doing.
>
> > Bruce has already exercised his powers in appointing someone to
> > orphaned packages and new maintainers (the idea being that new
> > maintainers should be encouraged to take over orphaned packages
> > before adding new packages, so that they can become properly
> > educated in the production of packages). This seems to be exactly
> > the job you want Bruce to perform.
>
> Ah, so he has? When did he and whom did he appoint? I have the
> impression that there is a lot going on of which the developers and
> the Debian community as a whole are not kept aware of. What happend
> to the claim that Debian should be distribution "by users for users"?
>
> > I think that this is a perception problem on your part Dominik. No
> > one, not even Bruce has ever argued for a "closed team".
>
> No has not, but matter of factly he is implementing one. All those
> talk about verifing developers was so far just talk with no consensus
> if and what action had to be taken.
>
Talking to death is "The Debian Way" ;-) at some point some person has to
act. Yet here, no action was being taken, only additional suggestions for
concideration, but your preconception that Bruce is "intentionaly"
dammaging the project has caused you to see his comments as statements of
policy. I certainly didn't see it that way.
> > Personally, I would prefer to hear just what, about the proposal,
> > you dislike so much, rather than this disruptive (and to my mind
> > uncalled for) call for a "vote of dismissal from office". Anger is
> > not an appropriate motivational tool to use when you become
> > frustrated. At least in groups like this it only escalates tensions.
>
> I dislike that he acted before he informed. He is creating facts and
> then leaves us no chance but to follow his lead, even when it is not
> necessary that he uses this approach.
This is the place where we differ in perceptions. I took his statements to
be informative. As to creating facts, there is far to much of that going
on by several parties in this discussion, yourself included.
>
> > Well, there do seem to be some distribution problems with the
> > lists. There are "top people" working on it as we speak. This "last
> > action" as you put it was completely sanctioned by the board and, to
> > my mind, has been positive in many respects. If you want Bruce's
> > removal because of this class of action on his part, you better just
> > shoot the whole board as well.
>
> Say again! The board approved that he deleted all the lists? You got
> to be joking.
Here is one of those "created" facts. As I understood the events, Bruce
cleaned out his files on master in preperation for leaving the project
(which he later decided against) and, because the mailing list data was
being kept on his personal directories, it dissapeared. These were clearly
mistakes, but since when is Bruce not allowed to be human?
What the board authorized and supported was the moving of the lists and
the new list manager.
>
> > Dominik, please, it is apparent from your posting that your are
> > angry and frustrated, but this aggressive posture you have taken is
> > no good for anyone (yourself included). Please consider the goals
> > and motivations that drive your participation in the group. Then try
> > to realize that the rest of us (Yes, even Bruce) have VERY similar
> > goals and motivations (or we wouldn't be here). If you can cross
> > that bridge, then, whenever you feel frustrated by the way things
> > are going, realize that many of us are just as frustrated over just
> > the same issues. With that in mind, I beg you to consider another
> > method of bringing your frustrations to the table.
>
> So i have been aggressive?
Yes.
> I say you might have some perception
> problems yourself:
Very probable, but you clearly missed my point here.
>
> - I did't not announce to withdraw from the project and next thing
> delete all files i had on the master server (Why do so?), including
> files controling the mailing lists.
>
See above.
> - I did't disregard the work of those pathching the mailing lists
> up and appoint somebody else who needed to repeat their work.
> (Sorry Pete, i believe that you are capable and doing the best you can.)
>
> - I didn't disregard the work of those starting to work on the
> out-of-date website and appointed somebody else. (Sorry Sue, i know
> this is not your fault. You are doing fine!)
>
In both of the above paragraphs, you complain that Bruce should not have
appointed the people he did to the tasks he appointed them to, but you
seem to imply that these folks are doing a good job and your beef is not
with them. Then why "blame" Bruce for these actions, if they are resulting
in appropriate operations
> - I didn't disregard the work of those trying to set up a network of
> interconnected {www,ftp}.<county>.debian.org servers and "order" the
> web team to use the old ftp mirror list as basis for the work.
>
> - I didn't close bugs of other developers when they were engaging in a
> constructive debate on a potential problem.
>
Bruce is not the only one to have ever closed a bug that wasn't his. This
is fairly common practice. The developer had no problem with this. The bug
reporter had no problem with this. Why do you have such a problem with
this? My only conclusion is that you have a problem with Bruce that goes
beyond these issues. So, speaking of "smoke screens" lets hear the "real"
problem.
> All these things happened in the last couple of weeks, despite
> Mr. Perens claim that he is overworked and despite the project falling
> way behind schedule of the next release. And most of them affected
> the people now complaining about the current style of leadership.
>
> As it seems right know, i am the only one who finds the situation
> unbearable and that leaves as only conclusion that i do no longer fit
> into the project.
>
> Therefore i do resign from all responsibilities i have and cease all
> activities within and for the project. My last task will be a final
> upload of the kbd package to fix outstanding bugs and to deposite the
> current working tree of the web pages development in my homedirectory
> on master. I have already sent mail to the list server removing me
> from all internal mailing lists of the project and requested from
> those in charge of master.debian.org that my account on master and my
> debian.org mail address shall be disabled.
>
I am sorry to hear you take this possition. You can be abrasive and
obnoxious at times (as I'm sure that I have also been) but I have always
valued your input and will miss it in the future.
I would hope that you would reconsider and not leave the project over
personal problems with one individual.
> Rest assured that i wish all of you, including Mr. Perens, well and
> that you may reach whatever goals you envision for yourself and the
> project.
>
I extend to you the same wishes.
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: