Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Ean Schuessler <email@example.com> writes:
> ----- "Russ Allbery" wrote:
>> If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override
>> the delegate decision, and it has to pass. Neither of those things have
>> happened. Until they do, this is all pointless noise.
> Some people cannot just leave well enough alone. Please do not ask for
> another GR unless you want one.
I'm not entirely sure how to take this response. If you're trying to say
that I shouldn't have written the above paragraph, I beg to differ.
One of the problems with this whole mess from the start, as far as I'm
concerned, has been a lack of clarity around what the outcomes are, what
actions accomplish something, and what actions don't. My participation in
these threads, such as it is, has mostly been aiming for additional
clarity on exactly what actions are possible and what they mean so that
people can understand the outcome and make informed decisions about what
they want to do.
I'm not going to refrain from mentioning the word "GR" out of a fear that
to mention it will be to invoke it. We're all adults. We all know the
situation, we all know that another GR at this point on this topic may
cause harm to the project, and we all know that people are feeling
fatigue. I think it's worthwhile to be very clear about what's happening
and what actions would be required if one wanted to stop it precisely
*because* of that. Otherwise we risk drifting sideways into a situation
that would have been avoidable if we'd known the consequences going in.
If Robert feels this point is so important that he's willing to propose
another GR to stop the release, my refusal to mention the term GR isn't
going to stop him. Whether he does or not is a decision that only he can
I think it's worthwhile being extremely blunt about this at this point.
Robert isn't happy with how the outcome is being interpreted. I
understand and respect his disagreement with me over my contitutional
interpretation. However, just as that disagreement didn't cause him to
change his mind, neither has it caused me to change my mind. I think that
it's clear from subsequent discussion that there's enough agreement with
either my interpretation, with Bdale's alternate way of arriving at a
similar conclusion, or with a feeling that we should postpone this issue
for now regardless, that Robert's constitutional interpretation is not
going to be adopted at present. I think that was clear even before the
outcome of the vote.
In the realm of debian-vote, he therefore has a choice (as do those who
agree with his interpretation). He can either propose another GR to have
the project adopt his interpretation via a delegate override, he can let
it go for the time being and bring it up again later, or he can let it go
entirely. (Obviously he has other possible actions outside of
debian-vote, such as fixing or helping to fix the bugs with which he's
concerned, but that's outside the scope of the point I'm making.)
We do ourselves no favors by not being forthright about the possibilities.
It's clear that we don't have consensus, so having another extended
discussion about how we don't have consensus just creates more hurt
feelings and animosities.
If I were absolutely convinced that the project was going off in a very
bad direction on this topic, the strongest argument that I'd see against
proposing another GR right now is that it's a *tactically* horrible idea.
Another GR right now is likely to be soundly defeated *regardless* of the
project's opinion as a whole on the constitutional question.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>