Re: "done with consensus decisionmaking", "war", "rearguard battles" [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
[CCed to a wider audience, but reply-to and mail-followup-to set to
avoid a prolonged cross-list thread.]
Sune Vuorela wrote:
> I have a hard time assuming good faith from people who are at war.
>
> /Sune
>
> [17:35:34]
> http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2014/debian-ctte.2014-10-30-17.00.log.html
Sune,
Thank you for calling attention to that very disturbing IRC log. I'd
recommend reading the whole thing, but I've called out a few
particularly disturbing quotes below that make me quite done with
assuming anything even remotely close to good faith anymore. (Note that
"Diziet" is Ian's IRC nick.)
17:14:02 <Diziet> bdale: The GR is going to be another 3 weeks.
17:14:09 <Diziet> We should decide on the automatic switch before then IMO
17:15:30 <Diziet> I don't think it's reasonable to say that we need a tested alternative given how bad the situation is right now.
(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...)
17:34:12 <dondelelcaro> Diziet: I don't think that stating that we don't want to swap on upgrades is something we can agree on
17:34:25 <dondelelcaro> Diziet: at least, not while the GR is happening which seems to directly address this part of the question
17:34:28 <Diziet> dondelelcaro: That's not the question. The question is whether it's something that would pass a TC vote.
17:34:32 <Diziet> I'm done with consensus decisionmaking.
17:35:34 <Diziet> That's not to say I'm not open to convincing. But everything done by my opponents in this whole war has been done on a majoritarian basis and I see no reason to limit myself to consensual acts.
17:36:48 <dondelelcaro> Diziet: we can always go to majoritarian, but if we can agree, so much the better.
17:37:17 <Diziet> dondelelcaro: I and my allies have been being shat on by the majoritarians since February. It's too late for that.
(I'll also point out the pile of #action items Ian self-assigned, as
well as the pile of times Ian has effectively self-referred items to the
TC in the first place.)
I've already felt from the more public portions of the TC discussions
that Ian has been using the TC as a personal stick to hit people with.
This makes it even more clear. See also Joey Hess's near-final mail at
https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/11/msg00045.html , pointing
out the same issues.
Calling this a war, being "done with consensus decisionmaking", "bitter
rearguard battles" indeed...
To put it bluntly: I don't believe this is even remotely acceptable
behavior from a member of the TC (or a member of the project in general,
but in the latter case someone has less potential to cause damage).
Does anyone, in light of the above, feel even remotely comfortable
having Ian continue to wield^Wserve on the technical committee? I don't
care *how* you feel about init systems or any other issue; the above
actions, tactics, and statements, and similarly consistent ones
elsewhere are not even remotely acceptable on any side. The
frothing-mad rampage and the battle-on-every-possible-front needs to
end. I think it's safe to say that there's a substantial number of
people hoping that the current GR will actually *settle* this question,
with the project having spoken.
We clearly have a pile of people who want to discuss and deal with the
init system issue, many of whom are still capable of productive
discussion and consensus-building. Many people are actively developing
solutions to make the situation better. I've seen very impressive
reasoning and careful judgement by various people in this and other
issues. Russ Allbery comes to mind as the high standard we should
expect from our TC members. And every other member of the TC, on *both*
sides, seems quite reasoned and reasonable.
So, at the risk of making things worse before they get better, since
nobody else seems willing to explicitly say it:
What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee?
Reply to: