Re: "done with consensus decisionmaking", "war", "rearguard battles" [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
[Please CC me on replies.]
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > (After repetition of the exact wording of the "We aren't convinced"
> > wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be
> > interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sure enough it did...)
> The "we are currently skeptical" wording was not present in the passed
> resolution; it was amended in 7a000.
I stand corrected; thank you. However, I don't think that changes the
point. The resulting decision had effectively the same tone.
Linking to the resolution announcement for reference:
> That paragraph 4 of that decision could be interpreted as deciding the
> switching issue was only clear to me in retrospect, and was certainly
> not my intention (and I don't believe it reflects the intention of
> anyone else on the CTTE.)
I completely believe that it was not the intention of most of the people
voting for the resolution that passed. However, the combination of item
1 (explicitly narrowing the scope of the previous TC decision), item 4
(inviting proposals towards one specific approach), and item 5 ("After
the result of the General Resolution is known, we intend to formally
resolve the question", as though the TC *should* continue to take action
after the GR) comes across as both threatening and interminable, and
makes it fairly clear what action the TC wants to take.
Furthermore, the very top of the announcement in
a lie of omission as well: "The technical committee was asked". As Joey
Hess put it in
> I am astounded that, in #762194, the technical committe has
> 1. Decided it should make a decision, when no disagreement
> between maintainers of affected packages is involved.
> 2. Ignored evidence of ongoing work.
> (specifically, https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762194#25)
> 3. Plowed ahead with a vote that decides a massively complicated
> issue with a grand total of 3 days of discussion.
> This is not a decision-making process that will yeild a high-quality
> distibution. Or one that I can be proud to be involved with. Or one
> that, frankly, gives me any confidence in the technical committee's
> current membership or indeed reason to continue to exist.
I agree almost completely with Joey's thoughts above, with one
exception. Personally, I still have plenty of confidence in almost all
of the technical committee's current membership, including those on
*both* sides of the current debate, with one very glaring exception.
I would also suggest that it's a bad idea to let a single member of an
arbitration body refer in a pile of issues, write up draft resolutions
for those issues, push for rapid discussion and votes on those issues,
and send out the resulting decisions. Those do not seem like signs of a
healthy process, and they certainly contribute to the impression of the
TC being used as a weapon.
- Josh Triplett