Hi! Thanks a lot for this mail. It clearly explains what I and others feel about the Dunc-Tanc "experiment". I haven't signed it, but please consider this mail as a signature. Bye, Aurelien Jarno, Debian Developer On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:46:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > Hi, > > After a long and ambivalent discussion during the last weeks the project > "Dunc Tank" (short DT from now on) has recently started. We consider > that to be a major change to the Debian project culture: For the first > time Debian Developers are paid for their work on Debian by a > institution so near to the project itself. > > > While we disagree with DT for the reasons outlined below, we want to > state that this is not against the two people who should now benefit > From it. We do trust Andreas and Steve that they do the best they can > and only intend to do something good for Debian. > > > With this mail we would like to summarize our thoughts about the DT > project and the idea behind it. We also want to raise some questions we > still consider unanswered and open: > > - Why were the release managers (RMs) chosen as beneficiary for this > experiment? There are several areas within the Debian project > that we consider equally important and full-time work there could > benefit the project way more. Especially since it is clear now that we > currently can not keep the scheduled release date, even with DT paying > our RMs. > > - What exactly are the release managers being paid for? There surely > must be more than a simple "Stay at home, work on Debian" in their > contract. > > - How does DT want to know whether the release managers stick to their > part of the agreement? > > - How is the success of this "experiment" measured? (For the release as > well as for the entire project) > > - How do these measurements make sure that the observed consequences are > based on the experiment? > > - How is it planned or is it even possible to compare the consequences > of the experiment with a state of the project without this experiment? > > - What actions have been taken to ensure that potential negative > outcomes of the experiment won't affect the Debian project? > > - Has it taken into account that several developers who have spent large > chunks of time on Debian before got demotivated to continue their work? > > - How do these measurements try to compare positive and negative effects > on the release as well as the Debian project itself? > > - During the discussion before the experiment it was said that the > living costs of the release managers are to be paid. Additionally it > was said that it is "providing a reasonable amount of money to cover > living expenses" and later on, that this is "below the average" they > could get elsewhere. However, the official donation site[1] > mentions US$ 6000.00 for each release manager. We do consider this to > be neither just "living costs" nor "below average", not even by > applying common taxes and insurances one has to pay. On what grounds > has this amount been calculated? > > [1] https://www.pubsoft.org/pubsoft.py/project?proj=Dunc-Tank-etch-rm > > Although DT claims to be separate from Debian, we still feel that we are > entitled to an answer to our questions, since after all, we are the > people DT is experimenting with! > > > After this set of questions let us comment on DT and present our opinion > about statements made by DT supporters and board members. > > > One claim of the DT people is that this "is only an experiment". Yet > this whole affair already hurts Debian more than it can ever achieve. It > already made a lot of people who have contributed a huge amount of time > and work to Debian reduce their work. People left the project, others > are orphaning packages, the NEW queue is rising, system administration > and security work is reduced, DWN is no longer released weekly and a lot > of otherwise silent maintainers simply put off Debian work and work on > something else. While some of these actions simply tend to happen, all > the listed points are explicitly due to DT. Compared to possible > benefits one may see - e.g. releasing near a time we promised to release > at - in our opinion this is not worth the trouble DT already got us in. > > > Another bad feeling introduced by DT is that of a two-class > project. Until DT, Debian has been a completely volunteer-based > project. Today there are two paid Release Managers, opposed to all other > project members. This creates a set of two "uber-DDs", in contrast to > all the other nearly 1000 Developers and many more maintainers, whose > work seems to be considered less important for Debian. It is ridiculous > to set a deadline and then to create a project to pay those two people > who set the deadline, but ignore the huge amount of work other people > put into Debian. It is not as if those two Release Managers are now > doing all the work that needs to be done, it is expected that they go > and "direct" other people to do the work for the release. So why don't > we pay all of them also? Aren't they worth the money? > > > Another statement we heard repeatedly from DT supporters is that "DT is > a separate project and not Debian". We do think that this is, at best, a > joke. The DT board consists solely of the current Debian Project Leader, > his assistant and other high-profile Debian Developers, working on a > Debian related project. This simply can't be seen as something separated > From Debian and the public has already proven that it doesn't consider > it a totally separate project. > > > We also heard a lot of sentences like "this happens since years, DT is > nothing new". We do acknowledge that people get paid for work on Debian > issues since years. We do not have a problem with this fact per se, > quite the opposite is true. The big difference between DT and any random > company paying people to work on Debian is that companies usually pay > people to work on stuff they benefit from, for example a programmer that > enhances a program in Debian and also happens to be the package > maintainer has the permission to maintain the package in Debian during > its work time. Or some system administrator that can enhance packages in > Debian which then also benefits his work (like fixing bugs he then > doesn't have to fix on every package upgrade). The important point here > is that it does not involve an employer <-> employee situation within > Debian, which DT is now introducing. > > > So, to summarize DTs effects on Debian: It has demotivated a lot of > people who now either resigned, simply stopped doing (parts of their) > Debian work or are doing a lot less than they did before DT was > started. The freeze got delayed and getting the release out on schedule > has become nearly impossible. We are unable to see any good virtue in > this "experiment". > > > The heated discussion DT has consumed an incredible amount of > time and energy that could also have been used in a much more productive > way. This was probably expected from the DT initiators but didn't keep > them from setting off this discussion at such an important time - > shortly before the release. Why they didn't introduce DT *after* the > release, or much much earlier in this release cycle, when there is/was > time and a lengthy discussion would not have taken otherwise needed time > is not understandable. > > > Having said all this and also risking yet another flamewar, let us make > a last request for now: Please have a healthy discussion, let the DT > people answer these questions, tell them (or us) if they (or we) made wrong > assumptions or something, but please do not flame. > > > Signed by: > Jörg Jaspert, ftp-master assistant, DAM, DebConf Organizer > Alexander Schmehl, Debian Developer, press, event manager, DebConf Organizer > Alexander Wirt, Debian Developer > Daniel Priem, New Maintainer > Martin Würtele, Debian Developer > Gerfried Fuchs, Debian Developer > Patrick Jäger, User > Otavio Salvador, Debian Developer > Joey Schulze, Debian Developer, Security, DWN, DSA, press, promoter > Felipe Augusto van de Wiel, New Maintainer > Sam Hocevar, Debian Developer > Pierre Habouzit, Debian Developer > Julien Danjou, Debian Developer, Stable Release Manager > Peter Palfrader, Debian Developer > Julien Blache, Debian Developer, promoter > Christoph Berg, Debian Developer, QA, NM front-desk > Holger Levsen, New Maintainer, DebConf Organizer > > > > Some public statements from Debian people: > > Holger Levsen: [2] rather say no without reasons than say nothing > Julien Danjou: [3] My way to have etch released on time > Gerfried Fuchs: [4] All Praise Dunc-Tank! > Joey Schulze: [5] Debian is a failure, [6] Where's the fun gone?, [7] Debian Weekly News > Julien Blache: [8] Dunc-Tank and "living expenses" > > [2] http://layer-acht.org/blog/debian/#1-37 > [3] http://julien.danjou.info/blog/index.php/2006/09/20/334-my-way-to-have-etch-released-on-time > [4] http://alfie.ist.org/blog/2006/09/21 > [5] http://www.infodrom.org/~joey/log/?200609210757 > [6] http://www.infodrom.org/~joey/log/?200609220755 > [7] http://www.infodrom.org/~joey/log/?200610250942 > [8] http://blog.technologeek.org/2006/10/25/32 > > -- > bye Joerg > <elmo> [..] trying to avoid extra dependencies on gnumeric is like trying to > plug one hole in the titantic with a bit of tissue paper" -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' aurel32@debian.org | aurelien@aurel32.net `- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature