On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 01:47:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On 1/7/19 10:57 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> > > On 1/6/19 1:38 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > [systemd stuff]
> > > [systemd stuff]
> > I appreciate that the fights over systemd have been a defining
> > experience for many of us. Many of us are still bitter, me included.
> > I also appreciate that in some respects these fights are still,
> > unfortunately, being fought and harm is still being done (although
> > things are much less bad than they were).
> > But I really don't think it is helpful to link the recent arguments
> > over behaviour in the project, with init system diversity problems.
> > The issues are very different. And the toxic emotional and political
> > baggage from the init system stuff is really bad. So bringing init
> > system stuff into this conversation about acceptable conduct just
> > increases the hurt and argument, but does not lead to any better
> > conclusions.
> With all due respect - and recognizing your central involvement in the
> init-system-neutrality issue – I have to disagree with you here.
> IMHO, the issues are VERY similar - having to do with groupthink, diversion
> from groupthink, and really, really poor processes (and perhaps attitudes).
The process that was followed was:
- the Technical Committee was called on to make a decision about the
default init system in Debian (a technical matter).
- the TC decided.
- the Debian developers as a whole declined to overrule this decision via
GR.
I have no sympathy for people who have so little actual investment in the
Debian Project that they haven't even read the constitution to understand
that they don't have a franchise in such decisions, but then come onto the
project's mailing lists after the fact to express outrage at a technical
decision that they disagree with.
(I have a great deal of sympathy for users who were frustrated with the
actual decision, and worried about the impact of such a major change on
their future use of Debian. I just don't have any sympathy for those who
channeled that frustration into toxic posts on the mailing lists that sought
to browbeat Debian into changing course.)
I categorically reject the notion that a different process should have been
followed. Giving a formal voice to a wider range of stakeholders in Debian
(i.e.: Debian users as opposed to Debian Developers) would not have made the
discussion less acrimonious; it would not have eliminated the feelings of
upset at the conclusion. This was a decision about a default, which there
could only be one of. There were always going to be winners and losers.
The Debian Technical Committee voted unanimously to move away from sysvinit
as the default.
To suggest that a different process would have resulted in a different
outcome is to demand the Debian constitution be rewritten to let someone
else get their way.
To suggest that a different process would have made the same outcome more
palatable to those on the losing side of the decision is naive.
Maybe you personally would have felt better about the outcome, if you
personally had been consulted. But that doesn't scale, and provides no
basis for an amendment to the Debian decision-making processes.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature