Re: Censorship in Debian
>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:
Scott> On Monday, January 07, 2019 07:06:28 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> writes: > On the
>> other hand, the IETF seems to do just fine - with a much larger >
>> base of participants, and a lot more room for discussion and
>> debate on > contentious issues. Global infrastructure, with
>> distributed ownership, > lots of stakeholders, all held together
>> by agreements, with the decision > processes open to pretty much
>> anybody who shows up. The process puts > pretty much everyone
>> else to shame - with lots to be learned from it.
>>
>> Speaking as someone who is a listed author on three published
>> RFCs and chaired one IETF working group, I will take Debian
>> process over IETF process any day, and find your description of
>> the IETF pretty entertaining. :)
>>
>> Also, please note that many IETF participants are paid as part of
>> their job to participate in the IETF. (We keep coming back to
>> that.) That's true of some Debian contributors as well, of
>> course, but I strongly suspect the percentage is lower.
Scott> Similarly here (also three RFCs, but never chaired a working
Scott> group).
Scott> The IETF rough consensus model is very useful in many
Scott> circumstances. I've used it successfully in multiple
Scott> settings outside the IETF to great success in both moving
Scott> technical work forward or driving decision making in a closed
Scott> group to closure. It's not relevant to the problem a group
Scott> like the Debian tech ctte has, however.
Scott> Groups like the tech ctte have a different problem than an
Scott> IETF working group. They have to make final decisions on
Scott> things that affect the project as a whole, many of which are
Scott>
Scott> I'll also remind you that the IETF process as a whole is not
Scott> whoever shows up. IETF working groups and IETF last call are
Scott> open processes. IESG decision making is not. You can have
Scott> all the working group consensus you want, if there are
Scott> uncleared discusses against your draft, it's not moving
Scott> forward. If you want a comparison, the tech ctte is a lot
Scott> more like the IESG than an IETF working group.
I've served on the Debian TC, I've served as an IETF working group
chair, and I've served on the IESG. I think I have a fairly good handle
on the differences between the IETF and Debian processes.
The IETF process is good for developing a consensus where you want to
focus on technical quality and where you have the right stakeholders as
motivated participants.
It requires a certain familiarity with consensus building to avoid a
number of pitfalls.
IT IS NOT TIME BOUNDED. It's great for situations where you are more
concerned with the right decision than concerned with a decision within
a particular time line.
There are ways that you can try to control the time the IETF process
takes, and it's even possible to do that if you can get a consensus on
what the timeline is and on the technical tradeoffs that are in scope
to achieve that timeline.
Debian did not meet those conditions for the init system decision by the
time it came to the TC.
Debian had already done a lot of consensus building. We understood the
scope of the problem, we understood some of the complexities surrounding
having multiple init systems.
TC members did do some additional excellent work curating and
summarizing that knowledge (I was not on the TC at the time but was
following the discussion).
A consensus process would not have achieved the goal shared by most of
the project of having a decision in time for the jessie release.
I am unlikely to contribute to this thread again; like Ian I think
init systems are off topic.
--Sam
Reply to: