[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:17:52AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> ----- "Robert Millan" wrote: 
> > The majority of developers voted to make an exception for firmware in 
> > Lenny. They did NOT vote to empower the Release Team to make exceptions 
> > as they see fit. Results of GR 2008/003 are crystal clear about this. 
> Unfortunately, nothing can be crystal clear about GR 2008/003 because there is simply nothing crystal clear about it.

It's clear what the vote says.  What the voters were thinking, I can't
tell.  Usually one would assume they were thinking the same thing they
voted.  At least, when I voted, I did.

If we have reasons to believe this is not so, I think the vote should be
invalidated.  Playing with a flawed vote is very dangerous bussiness.

> Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. I say "ironically" because Bdale's actions go far beyond anything Manoj did with regard to imposing his desires or thoughts on the construction or result of a vote. Amusingly, those who called for Manoj's head have now fallen quite silent. 

Agreed.  Then again, even if Manoj was rightfully appliing super-majority
requirements (which I think he was), it has become clear that, in general,
such requirements are not politicaly sustainable.  And in practice they
don't exist anymore, anyway.    I think this would be a good time to propose
that they are removed from the Constitution.

> There are some things that are clear to me: 
> * I have a very high level of trust in Bdale, even when he starts doing peculiar things. 

I don't know him that well, so I can only judge him by his recent actions,
which are quite questionable.  I acknowledge that it may be unfair that I
can't also recognize his merits, but this is how it is.

OTOH, writing in a harsh tone is something that sometimes happens to me when
I find something outrageous.  Then again, at least I'm capable of rectifiing,
which not everyone in this thread is.

> * We should not delay Lenny for further political discussion because people's operations depend on our release. 

I tend to agree with this, but I don't think this is the matter at hand.  My
concerns are:

  - Some maintainers are simply refusing to fix DFSG violations that would
    otherwise NOT delay Lenny, as a consequence of the RT's rather low
    requirements for appliing a "lenny-ignore" tag.  A good example of that
    is #459705, in which the maintainer simply said "I'd rather not remove
    this file".  I think this creates a VERY dangerous precedent, which is
    precisely what I'm trying to stop.

    Yeah, it is really.  It's not like one day I woke up and thought "hey, it
    would be cool if we could delay Lenny".

  - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay
    Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned.
    Not doing so creates a very bad precedent.

> * Discussion of these issues in the shadow of Lenny warps people's minds and makes sane discourse impossible. 

Spot on.  And point taken.

> * We have already made several such releases in the past and do not have a soberly constructed framework for solving the problem permanently. 

What is wrong with the framework we've used for Sarge and Etch?

> With that in mind, I am inclined to go along with Bdale's "release Lenny by all means possible" reading of 2008/003.
> However, if anyone views this as a victory then they are smoking extremely powerful crack. I would rosily call this
> a "convenient failure of democratic discipline" on Debian's part. It would be VERY, VERY UNFORTUNATE if it continutes
> to be a permanent pattern. I think the very survival of our organization depends on us coming to a well defined
> solution by the next release. 

If we're going to go that route, at the very least I think the project should
issue a position statement explaining something like:

  - We just screwed up.  Sorry about that.

  - It's too late in the Lenny release process to do something about this
    without causing unacceptable delays.  We will release Lenny ASAP out of

  - We will try to find a solution.

Would you be likely to support such thing?

> So I'm sorry Robert, your heart is absolutely in the right place but I agree that we should release Lenny.

You say you're sorry?  You almost read my mind!

But I don't agree that doing nothing is going to solve our problem.

Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."

Reply to: