Re: Let's Stop Getting Torn Apart by Disagreement: Concerns about the Technical Committee
On 11/03/2017 07:21 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 03:24:21PM -0400, Marty wrote:
The debate was fierce even within Debian, and the final vote was very
close. The 1% that decide for the rest, couldn't decide.
So you're saying that you're a strong proponent of upstart? It's
interesting how much support upstart has gotten only in the form of
eulogies.
No eulogy was given for Debian policy 9.11 "Alternate init systems"
which is still technically in effect (unless I found an old copy).
I guess the vote I was thinking of was "general resolution not required"
narrowly edging out "support for other init systems is recommended, but
not required." in https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_003 which was
anticlimactic, but seems to indicate the depth of the ideological split.
But if your actual position is that Debian should have stayed with sysvinit
as the default, then you should understand *that* decision was nowhere near
close. The Technical Committee was unanimous in their view that *either* of
systemd or upstart was preferable to sysvinit as the default init system.
Any claim to the contrary is historical revisionism.
I agree technically but I wonder whether strategic, ethical or social
contract issues were given sufficient weight, or if the constitution even
allows for such considerations. I don't know but this obviously would
include some regard for the wider community, including users.
Here is what I saw as a user and outsider: there was no good technical
option because Debian is not its own upstream source and evil mega-corp
jumped into the void offering a poison pill. The community then became
engulfed in a mostly pointless and crippling debate that ignored the
actual threat to its social contract. It follows a pattern I've seen
before in free software projects, including Unix in the 1980s.
Debian was caught off-guard and its governance structures did not appear
to be designed to give sufficient weight to strategic, ethical and
idealistic considerations, rather than just the bare technical issues.
The resulting infighting prevented both a strategic response and a
satisfactory resolution.
I can't see it from your insider perspective but from where I sit the
whole thing looks corrupt to the bone. Instead of adopting corporate
slogans start with "follow the money" and at least remove voting
privileges from paid members.
... and this sort of nonsense is why I agree with Ian about the causes of TC
dysfunction.
The Technical Committee is a Debian-internal decision making body. People
who are neither package maintainers nor voting members of the Debian Project
should NOT have weight given to their views, except by invitation from the
TC itself; because to have it any other way creates exactly the same failure
modes of any other Internet pile-on, where people who have no standing in
the first place expect the issue to be decided based on who can shout the
loudest, and those who are trying to make a decision grounded in the TC's
constitutional authority and duty to act in the best interest of the project
can't hear themselves think.
In this case don't forget the massive internet campaign that looked like
a sponsored AstroTurf effort. I can't prove anything of course, any more
than I can prove Russians hacked US elections, but perceptions count.
I think ideally a decision making body should represent all users and
contributors somehow. I don't see how you can meet the social contract
otherwise.
Furthermore I don't think it's healthy to define all decisions in purely
technical terms in an organization defined by a social contract. I think
this may be a flaw that leads to many legalistic debates and much
browbeating, as every debate gets reduced to its simplest technical terms.
I guess it all depends on whether you think Debian is about free software
or software freedom. They're not quite the same.
I would expect the TC to weigh arguments by their validity, not just
their source, in addition to accounting for proponents' vested interests
(good or bad).
90% of the problem of people feeling they haven't been heard by the TC comes
from people who the TC /shouldn't actually be listening to/ investing their
time and emotional energy commenting on the process. Removing the
opportunity to comment and the expectation of being listened to would make
for a much less frustrating process.
Deleting comments and threads on -user was ham-fisted at best if that's what
you mean. To me its a sign of a breakdown of good order, not good enforcement.
I mostly agree with you but the presence of corporate paid members still
seems like an issue especially in this case. What's to keep random mega-corp
from taking over any free software project? I'd love to see a straw vote on
this topic, complete with voters' respective corporate affiliations.
This doesn't address the question of Debian Developers feeling they haven't
been heard.
I'm hopeful that the other subthread can make some progress on this point.
Reply to: