[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Question to all candidates: DPL's role in important package maintenance

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 09:59:08AM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> The method adopted for resolution of this conflict has, for better or
> for worse, happened "behind-the-scenes". Now, some in the project feel
> that this is the best way to avoid a conflagration of sorts, but
> others feel that this "back channel" approach does not augur well for
> a project which strives to adopt open procedures.

I absolutely agree with this concern of yours (well, of the "others"
mentioned, not sure if you're among them or not :-P).

> Would you, as DPL, facilitate such negotiations in the open (for
> instance, on a publicly viewable mailing list), or under wraps?

Negotiations should happen in the open. That is the case not only
because we are meant to be an open project, but also because when they
are not, the disruptures in the community they will cause later on are
unbearable (as some of ours most typical flame patterns show).

I concede that in some cases there might be some "under wraps" mails,
but the only justification I can imagine for that right now is when
there are personal feelings or other personal information at stake
(which, I think, can be censored somehow to not let the project in the

I also understand that in some cases there can be exchanges which are
not immediately available (e.g. if a meeting it set up to solve the
issue, I don't necessarily expect the meeting to be in streaming).
Nevertheless they should be planned in the open a priori, and promptly
summarized a posteriori to let the rest of the project know and possibly


Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: