On Fri, 2019-01-04 at 10:57 +0000, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > You are misrepresenting this: it has been said outside of this list > that this does not represent an expulsion procedure but a procedure > that makes it possible for DDs to make DAM consider an removal of > privileges, because that's what it is. OK, could somebody clear something up for me please? Does Debian have a procedure / policy or something saying what triggers the DAM moving down the road towards a Developers expulsion (so it's clear when they must act), and what procedure they follow when expel someone. I thought that was it. Apparently not. A group having no formal procedures for the decision the DAM just made is fine for 3 or 6, risky for a 20, and a sure recipe for what I just witnessed for an organisation as large as Debian. > - Another group of people wants to escalate this discussion to -vote > and seems to be equally working on yet another proposal, as far as I > understood. They are being very quiet about it, as there were no posts to -vote this month, and 3 last month all of which were spam. If you are referring to the proposed GR, they have said repeatedly (to the point I'm sure they getting tired of it) it's about reversing a single decision. It is not about policy, and they appear to be doing everything to keep policy or any comment of how the DAM implemented out of it. We are discussing to different things. > - DAM has not had the time to react and it has been asked explicitly > and several times to give them this time. I'll put it bluntly: they should not need time. They've just made one gravest of decisions a Developer one could make. If they did that without compiling a dossier of evidence, and then followed a clear line of reasoning to the decision, then it has to be made clear to them they haven't done their jobs well. As it happens, we know they did most of these things. Kudo's to them. Perhaps it is not quite up the standard they would like given it was a private email, perhaps because they thought it would remain so. But even so we are talking minor polishing here - a few hours of work at most. Thinking up a post hoc justification of the decision would take longer, of course. But if they need to do that, it's an indicator they are not confident their reasoning is good enough to convince the community at large. That means they didn't do thorough job before they made the decision, and they are re-visiting it. If they are indeed doing that one the options on the table should be their reasoning was wrong, and consequently they need reverse it. To repeat: needing time to think up a justification for your actions when to do your job needs very careful justification before you act is not a good look. > - Did you consider communicating with DAM before writing here? Do you see the first sentence? It said: "It's been made plain to me I've done a bad job of explaining myself on debian-private". Obviously I didn't just consider it: I did it. > Please: don't push more on yet another mailing list until the above > points are somewhat settled, i.e. DAM has had time to react and the > other group has started circulating their draft, if they still plan > to do so. Sorry, no. To me that sounds like a very poor way of going about things. If I was the DAM I'd prefer to get a lay of the land before I acted a second time given the first attempt had such an unpleasant outcome. I'd want others to throw up ideas and see how the community reacts to them, letting the rest of the project do the advocacy work and take the associated heat. Once the possibilities have been explored then I'd make my second announcement, hopefully using what I've learnt to avoid a repeat performance. I'll continue behave as I would want others behave towards me.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part