On 14/03/14 at 16:15 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Fri, March 14, 2014 15:37, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > You use the init discussions as an example. I'd like to stress that many > > people (inside and outside Debian) have been extremely impressed by the > > init discussion on the -ctte@ list. The Technical Committee provided an > > in-depth technical review of the various options, and many people told me > > that they read those discussions and learned a lot of things about init > > systems. > > > > That discussion gives good examples of recipes for successful discussions > > in Debian: focus on the technical issues, on the goals, on the interests, > > understand and respect the points made by other participants, etc. > > This surprises me. I rather perceived that discussion as needlessly > aggressive and highly confrontational (also when discounting all the > external 'contributors'): it even got so far that a resolution was > proposed and voted on to depose the chairman. Is this in your opinion > really a model for how discussions should be handled? Heh, right. I was thinking of the part of the discussion that focused on the technical examination of the various solutions, not about the part of the discussion about the vote preparation. So, an interesting question would be: what were the root issues that made this part of the discussion rather unhealthy, and what could we do to detect/avoid that in the future? One was clearly the fact that we gained a better understanding of some of the limitations of our voting system during that discussion. But there might be others. I must admit that I don't remember the details of the discussion clearly enough to make an informed guess here. Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature