Hi Felix, Le vendredi 06 novembre 2020 à 14:01:22-0800, Felix Lechner a écrit : > Hi Pierre-Elliott, > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 5:20 AM Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> wrote: > > > > A technical project consisting of people who may have opinions, even > > some based on non-very-technical aspects. > > There are no "non-technical" aspects in my effort to provide the best > possible service, aside from being a nice person, despite your > tendency to insert them. This is a bug report. In my opinion (and I failed to find any Debian resource telling otherwise), a bug report does not necessarily have to stick to technical aspects, and is a perfectly valid place to raise such questions. I thought it'd be better than redirecting this matter on debian-devel or other without prior discussion, especially to avoid involving a load of people which would indeed have been aggressive. > > Because I made an assumption on your intents and tried to tell you > > something you don't want to hear, which is that it should stay in Debian > > infra? > > The solution provided on the current Debian infrastructure has > performed poorly for a long time (and well before my arrival). The lintian.debian.org website, probably. The infrastructure is just a machine and I don't see how it could perform poorly except if it lacks physical resources. > There is nothing untoward about my intentions. The prominence of your > suspicions in your reasoning cannot change it. You are either being > manipulative, or you are trying to provoke a reaction. Either way, > your accusations have no basis. I'll be blunt, but you should really review the way you interact with people if you see manipulation or aggression in a question raised along with concerns. As I see it, your reaction is as much inappropriate as you claim my message is. When someone comes and say "It feels to me that you could have the intent to move the *production* lintian site out of Debian's machines.", which is voluntarily written as hypotheticall, it means that one wonders if it is your intention, and, indeed, to avoid accusation, it is turned as an hypothesis. Feeling attacked by someone asking if you intend to do something and if so, that they think it could be a bad idea is something that prompts me to tell you, as you do downwards, /please get some rest/. > > > Come on, you should accept the idea that other people has > > different opinions than yours and have a right to state these. The > > "it's not technical" argument is not a valid answer. > > Again, this is a bug report. Please be your own judge. And it's easy to say why and how someone could see "moving part of an infra outside Debian" as a bug. I'm fine with asking it here, but if you feel like there'd be a better place, please do tell and I'll be glad to forward our discussion there. > > The fact that you are working on a > > project does not mean others can't express concerns and raise their > > voice if they think the decisions you seem to be willing to take are > > bad. > > Please explain which of my contributions to Lintian are "bad". I > regularly reverse changes that did not deliver the expected benefits. > Many of Lintian's bug reports are also about changes I made that did > not work. To the best of my ability, I respond timely. I challenge you > to prove otherwise. Your suggestion that I am reluctant to engage with > criticism is unsupported and faise. You seem (to me) reluctant to engage with criticism in that very case: I came with a simple question and you actually jumped at me, telling that I was forcing you to do something and intimidating you. That is not fine at all. Furthermore, I did not tell that any of your contributions to Lintian were bad, but I do tell that if you were willing to have, on the long run, the *production* lintian website hosted outside of the Debian infrastructure, then I think it would be a bad decision. I may be wrong, but that is what I think. > My point is further bolstered by this letter. Its writing consumed > valuable time and kept me from contributing in other and probably more > productive ways. Feel free to ignore me then, but I'm pretty convinced this discussion is useful, as I'm clearly trying to understand your thoughts and vision for lintian (the tool and the website), which are not written anywhere I could find (maybe I did missearch). > > I'm not coercing you and the way you represent it is your sole > > interpretation, which is a bit scary. > > You yourself wrote that you made assumptions about my intentions. Yes I did. Assuming one's intentions is not being coercitive, and having that person implying that I am trying to coerce them is their own interpretation, and scary, because nothing in my message could imply that I want to force you doing anything. And as I don't, I'd rather you to avoid telling that. > (You offer no details, but they are presumably unbecoming.) Plus, you > raise no technical points. Like it or not, the effect of your messages > is to malign and intimidate. It's your interpretation, and it is completely wrong. And "lintian is linked to core elements and should stay in Debian's infrastructure" is a technical point. > > I don't have to mention technical concerns to have a right to feel > > ill-at-ease with the idea of seeing lintian.debian.org disappear in > > favour of an externally hosted service. But actually, "it's > > Debian-centric and used by core components, so it's better having it > > in our infrastructure" also is a technical concern. > > I agree with you. Unfortunately, the infrastructure provided by DSA is > presently insufficient for the service people expect. (Just look at > this bug.) Your point is therefore hypothetical. This bug is about the website, which is not DSA-maintained as far as I understand, is it? I fear that we mix two things: the website and the machine. DSA is responsible only for the machine. > Eventually, I plan to approach DSA with a wishlist for deployment on > Debian hardware. As I stated previously, I am not ready because I am > still experimenting. And that part is perfectly normal and fine with me. > > This is what I call a test version. > > What an odd point to make! In my first response to this bug, I called > it an experiment. The words mean the same thing. "an experiment for the time being", which tends to imply that it's not supposed to stay an experiment, and that's why I raised my question. I'm sorry if that was not clear in my original message. > > DSA delivers machines, what you do of these is your call. See > > nm.debian.org, which is auto-deployed when we release on master et al. > > Thank you for your thoughtful reference. I previously watched Enrico's > talk [1] with great interest and also multiple times. Unfortunately, > the mechanism does not cover the automatic installation of runtime > prerequisites and is probably not helpful for Lintian (although it may > be for the website). But maybe we could find a solution to have this mecanism either work for you or improved to work for you? If not, then yes it could be interesting to think about alternatives. > Please also keep in mind that the Lintian maintainers try to produce > data for lintian.d.o with released versions (for easier comparison > with the BTS). Upon reflection, Debian's packaging system is ideally > suited to solve those issues. > > [1] https://debconf18.debconf.org/talks/71-autodeploy-from-salsa/ Yep, I do remember. > > Surely, that excludes tracker.debian.org, wiki.debian.org, > > nm.debian.org, ddpo.debian.org, udd.debian.org, … > > All I can say is, it was the response I got. I guess it's rather because static pages are harder to hack for anyone. DSA main concern is to avoid having any part of the infra compromised. That doesn't mean they would refuse having dynamic sites if and when it's justified. > > I can't see how and why DSA would forbid you to have a new website set > > in production on lintian.debian.org, and if they do, that's probably > > something worth a discussion on debian-devel to have things explained > > and understood, don't you think? > > At this point, I do not think such a broad call for assistance is > necessary. It also would not be helpful for my negotiations. My > counterparties at DSA will assume that I tried to sidestep them. It > embarrasses them and violates their trust. It is an awful way to beg > for understanding and compromise. I hope you understand. I do. But that's also Debian's way to have these public discussions when needed if private discussions with teams failed, so maybe at some point it'll be a useful tool. I actually don't see it as a way to sidestep a team but rather challenge their ideas or decisions. Except with a GR, you can't force someone changing their mind when they took a decision they're delegated for, anyway. > DSA will eventually have to engage in a conversation when I present a > viable alternative. (If not, I will ask for your help.) For the time > being, I am developing both websites in parallel. Most of my work has > gone to the static one. The dynamic website is not even up yet. I understand, and that answers to my original question. Let's be clear: if DSA were to refuse the solution you offer and that solution were to be what people wanted, then I'd clearly express my concerns and still tell you to do what seems best in your opinion. I just would like to be sure that everything possible is tried before going to the external solution, for Debian independence and also for consistency. And as I have no power, I express a preference, and a wish here, I won't force you because I can't, and it's better that way. > > Just because you feel hurt by the fact someone tries to tell you you > > should reconsider an idea doesn't mean their opinion or suggestion is > > moot. I'm sorry if you're feeling hurt, but I stand my point. > > I do not feel hurt. Your aggressive behavior toward me is simply > inappropriate. It resembles what is called a bear hug in the US. > Please do not project your assumptions and your fears onto me. [2] I was and still am not aggressive. That being said, yes, I projected my assumptions and fears onto you, because you're the one in charge, and as a regular lintian user, I have concerns you can answer to. Maybe you think I should not, but if I can't ask you what your intents for lintian are, then I can't ask anyone, and it's not good. > This likewise applies to any persons you may or may not represent as a > member of Debian's community team. Your vague and veiled language, as > in "...and I am probably not alone", only serves to heighten my > anxiety. It is not an open or honest way—and certainly not a friendly > way—to communicate. My vague language is simply due to the fact that I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one, but I didn't do a poll and I won't bother to do one, because the idea is *not* to have you pressured by number, but just to remind you that I'm not an illuminate with a weird idea on my sandbox. That being said, I don't see the link with the Community Team which is neither involved nor aware of my message (it it were involved, the team would be CC-ed). Should you feel the need to bring up to the Community Team this discussion, please don't hesitate to, I'll in that case step aside from the team at least until they process your query. > [2] Paragraph 7, from the former Chief Rabbi of the British Empire: > https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/282042 > > > As soon as > > your new site is working, I'd rather try to have it set in prod on > > lintian.debian.org than making central elements point to an external > > component. And I'd be happy to help and support you that way. > > Thank you for your commitment to help. I harbor no plans to redirect > any parts of Debian's services to my experimental server. The feeds > for tracker.d.o and UDD, which the Lintian maintainers control, > continue to be served from lintian.d.o. Ok, thanks for answering my question. > > That'd at least allow others to take care of it if one day you feel > > tired of the project, without having to restart everything from scratch. > > In line with your other comments, your loaded and suggestive undertone > is also misplaced here. Like everyone else's contributions to the > project, mine are available—without reservation or delay—on public > servers under open source licenses. Perhaps some fearful thoughts got > the better of you. It's possible that you misunderstood my point or that I failed to make it clear. I know that everything is free software. But a working infrastructure doesn't come up in five minutes. A DSA-maintained machine will survive any member getting tired of the project or having real life issues preventing them to be active, as DSA will be able to pass the access and the control to other people. An externally hosted machine lacks that feature, and if you were to be driven off Lintian maintenance (or Debian as a whole), that external machine could become unaccessible and unmaintainable by any other Debian Member, which would lead to the need to reinstall something, and potentially without all the elements (configuration) to do so. > Please do not be afraid. There is nothing improper going on. I only > strive to provide a positive user experience using modern > technologies. Ack. > If in doubt, please have a look at this rewarding message [3] which I > received yesterday. Maybe one day you and I can also correspond in > such a friendly way. I look forward to that day! > > [3] https://salsa.debian.org/jelmer/debian-janitor/-/issues/144#note_200256 My message is indeed unrewarding, and I'm sorry for that. But everyone can't be always happy about everything you do or say. Here, I felt like you were considering the idea of moving lintian.debian.org's website away from Debian infrastructure in some future, and I felt prompted to ask you if that were the case. Apparently it was not, and my fears were uncalled for, but without asking I would not have been able to have This doesn't mean I don't appreciate your work. And there is also construction in questions, criticism and arguments. > Have a good weekend, and please get some rest! You too! Cheers! -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature