On 1/7/19 7:57 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
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.
Well, first off, the process led to the resignation of the chair of the Technical Committee - out of a feeling that the process had become too "personalized."
Beyond that, there are a rather large number of folks, impacted by the decision, who did not have a seat at the table. Those of us who rely on Debian in production, for example. Upstream developers for another. Some of us knew about the issues & debates, without having a "franchise," others found out after the fact. Seems to me that lack of representation is, in itself, a rather big failure of governance.
(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.
It might, however, have led to the Technical Committee giving more weight to the impacts of the decisions.
The Debian Technical Committee voted unanimously to move away from sysvinit as the default.
And to making systemd the default, rather than init-neutral. And Ian resigned over the issue.
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.
Personally, as someone who's been involved in other organizations, and governance processes, I disagree, on all points. I also suggest that your categorical rejection of the possibility that things could be done better, is illustrative of the toxicity of the current process.
Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra