First of all, thank you Sam for your calming words. Have you considered
running for DPL by any chance? ;-)
Like Sam, I will not post a lot here. One reason is that I don't want
to spawn a flamewar; the other that I want to let messages sink in
before replying to them. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
On the other hand, that means my replies are about several posts, and
are rather long.
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 09:14:42PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that I didn't start this
> thread solely because of a single IRC log, but rather because of a
> pattern of behavior over the last year that shows no signs of changing.
To make my point of view clear: I haven't been subscribed to -vote for
quite some time (and I think I haven't set mutt up yet to keep me out of
the reply-to; however there is no need for a CC), and say your message
on -devel. I've tried to stay out of the init system debate as much as
I could for the sake of my own happiness and sanity. I've read a bit of
history, but am likely missing a lot of context.
However, you point to the IRC log as evidence of outrageous behaviour,
so I expect to see some extreme examples in it. But I don't see
anything wrong with it at all. The only part that is mildly disturbing
is completely understandable and excused, as far as I'm concerned, by
the massive long-lasting attacks that are directed _at_ Ian. Therefore
I felt the need to defend him. I know I'd like someone to do that if I
was in his situation.
But note that this is my understanding, and I might well misrepresent
Ian's opinion. If you want to know for sure what he thinks, ask him.
So let me explain how I see the situation. I also have a personal
opinion about systemd, but that wasn't part of my previous message and
I've tried to keep it out of this one (but I didn't entirely succeed).
- There are organisations (Microsoft, Apple, probably the NSA, probably
not Red Hat) who want to harm free software in general, or Debian in
particular.
- It is likely that those who are against us try to infiltrate our
organisation.
- Lennart and his gang are accused of being such infiltrators, trying to
take over the free software world by force, with the purpose of
harming it to the greatest extent possible. (This is an observation
that this accusation exists, not a judgement on whether this is true.)
I expect the above to be without dispute.
Now, as I understand it, Ian believes that the systemd folks are indeed
evil. I am not expressing an opinion myself; I have not seen enough to
know this. However, given what I have seen from systemd people (not
just proponents, but people with power, including Lennart himself), I am
not surprised that people believe this.
This means that Ian views himself as a defender of Debian against evil.
It is very noble of him to dedicate so much of his time to this cause,
and I admire him for it. As a DD who very much prefers to stay out of
the systemd debate, I am happy that people like Ian are willing to do
this. (Note that I'm not saying he's better than the rest of the TC;
I'm very pleased with all of them.)
With this background, I'll respond to some comments:
> > > 17:15:30 <Diziet> I don't think it's reasonable to say that we need a tested alternative given how bad the situation is right now.
> >
> > If you think the situation right now is not so bad, of course you
> > disagree with this. But from his point of view, that this situation is
> > indeed very bad, there is nothing unreasonable about "let's do
> > something, anything at all, to make sure this stops; problems we cause
> > can be fixed".
>
> I do indeed think that there's something extremely unreasonable about
> charging ahead with an attempted solution without even testing the
> result. ("We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must
> do it.")
Close, but not quite. "This must be improved *right now*; this looks
like something that will improve it; therefore, we must try it". As I
wrote, it's a matter of urgency. Ian believes (AFAICS) that the current
situation is worse than nothing. Even if the attempt at fixing it would
break everything, that would be an improvement. You don't agree with
that assessment, which is fine. But that doesn't make his point of view
unreasonable.
> > Fair enough, this is a part where the level of civility is lower.
>
> And this was the main set of items I wanted to call attention to from
> the log, including the one that Sune originally pointed out.
So he is angry. And he explains why:
> > > 17:37:17 <Diziet> I and my allies have been being shat on by the majoritarians since February.
He feels, rightfully or not, that nobody ever tries to involve him in a
consensus, instead, they prefer overruling him by majority. For almost
a year. And his anger shows in the form of "I'm sick of this, let's
just vote on it". While he's obviously angry, I think he is extremely
reasonable, especially given the circumstances.
> No, majority is not necessarily better than nothing; "nothing" is often
> a desirable result.
Yes, often it is. But not always. The systemd folks have made quite
clear, again and again, that they will not listen to people who want an
alternative. They will force systemd on every computer they can get
away with. _That_ is the reason the TC is involved in the first place.
The fact that they discuss several sides of the issue which technically
is different points is irrelevant IMO. They are discussing the issue
and that is good, because we are looking at a group of maintainers who
seem to be at war with a large part of our users and developers. That
is the sort of situation where the TC is supposed to step in.
> You've forgotten to ask whether the TC should be deciding something
> *at all*. The TC is an arbitration body of *last resort*, not a body
> that should be frequently acting of its own volition or that of one of
> its members.
The rest of the TC are adults. If Ian would try to force them to do
things, I'm very sure that they wouldn't comply. Ian wrote that
statement because he felt it most important that it was done, so he
volunteered to do the work. But I have no doubt that this was a
statement that the entire TC agreed on, and they also agreed that it
should indeed be sent out.
> Seeking consensus (whether successful or not) is a process that can help
> discover additional solutions that may prove better than simply taking
> the first available option that can pass a majority vote.
Yes, and everyone, including Ian, prefers that. But as he wrote, people
are attacking him for almost a year now. At some point, if you believe
that some action should be taken (and that is reasonable, because no
action means that the systemd maintainers can continue forcing their
will through), making a decision is more important than reaching
consensus. That, and that that point is now, is what Ian was saying,
and I completely agree.
> As dondelelcaro suggested, finding agreement seems quite preferable, and
> saying "we all give up convincing each other; let's put it to a vote"
> should only occur as a last resort. Pushing through a vote on an issue
> as quickly as possible does not seem at all appropriate for the
> considered actions of a dispute-resolution body.
How can you say that this is "as quickly as possible"? This has been
dragging for what seems like eternity. How long do they have to try to
reach consensus before it is time for a vote?
> Now, to be clear: as an individual developer, having a strong bias on a
> topic and referring in several issues related to that topic isn't
> necessarily a problem. I'd fully expect the TC to handle that just
> fine, and if necessary, to respond to attempted abuses of the TC as
> well. However, that's a very good reason to have a separation between
> those referring in issues and those adjudicating them.
I disagree. Being passionate about a subject can happen to anybody,
including those on the TC. If we would only allow people on the TC who
don't, then we get an indifferent group, which is not what I would want.
If we require TC-members to not participate in dicussions they deeply
care about, it gives an advantage to the attackers (because they will
not face opposition by the one who probably knows most about the
problem). Especially in the face of the infiltration-issue, this is
highly undesirable.
> > He is a DD, you know? Why would he not be allowed to refer items to the
> > TC? He could of course ask a friend to do it for him, but that would
> > just be useless work. He has every right to refer items to the TC.
>
> On rare occasion? Sure. Making a repeated pattern of it is a problem,
> and it starts to look a lot like picking fights
This is not a repeated pattern. It's all the same issue.
> (or fighting "bitter rearguard battles").
This may be a language issue, but I have been thinking about what a
"rearguard battle" is, and I can't think of any way Ian can possibly be
talking about himself. The rear guard is on the back. This must mean
that somebody has won a fight, but continues fighting anyway. Since Ian
doesn't seem to have won the fight at least so far, don't you think he
would be talking about the opposing army? And from what I've seen, that
might be correct, too. At least Lennart seems like he can't get enough
of fights. (But then complains that he gets attacked so much...)
> Someone who frequently feels the need to *raise* disputes should not
> be serving on the dispute-resolution body.
Frequently, sure. But this is still the same dispute. It's not like
he's raising all kinds of issues. He's looking at this issue from
several sides. There's nothing wrong with that, IMO.
> As I said to Don:
> > I would also suggest that it's a bad idea to let a single member of an
> > arbitration body refer in a pile of issues, write up draft resolutions
> > for those issues, push for rapid discussion and votes on those issues,
> > and send out the resulting decisions. Those do not seem like signs of
> > a healthy process, and they certainly contribute to the impression of
> > the TC being used as a weapon.
>
> I would hope that that seems sensible to you; if it doesn't, then
> there's little point in us arguing this further. :)
You suggest that the rest of the TC, who you otherwise seem to put a lot
of trust in, would be incapable of preventing this from happening. If
the TC as a whole puts out a statement, I consider it an implementation
detail how they got there. The fact that they publish it implies that
all of them agree that this is their decision and that they are
comfortable that they were making a decision. Claiming that Ian has
forced them to accept this tight timeline even though they didn't want
it, and that he forced them to accept that he would write the draft and
that they were unable to object to the actual text is unfair to them.
From the IRC log, it is quite clear to me that the TC functions well,
that Ian does not try, let alone succeed, to force the others to do
things against their will. In other words: all is well.
> > Ian feels strongly about the issues, and gets carried away at times.
> > IMO, that is a feature, not a bug, for a TC member.
>
> [..] no, I don't consider that even remotely a feature for a TC member.
> (Fortunately so, since otherwise we should be worried that the remainder
> of the committee lacks that "feature".)
I don't think they do. I haven't had contact with all of them, but I
know for example Steve can be very passionate as well. He also has the
admirable quality to never lose his temper (or so it seems). I agree
that that is a plus for a TC member, but I wouldn't make it a
requirement.
> > > Calling this a war,
> >
> > Have you followed the discussion? This _is_ a war.
>
> In much the same sense that emacs versus vi or Linux versus BSD is a
> "war", sure.
No. In the sense of "all is fair in love and war". Sure, nobody gets
killed. But otherwise? The systemd people are allegedly trying to
break our operating system. From the other side, people are trying to
stop systemd by any means possible, accepting lots of collateral damage.
This is much more than those conflicts you mention which are all "it's
fun to argue about it, but of course you should use whatever you like
best". In fact, that's directly the difference: the systemd people are
forcing their software on all computers, and admins have to work hard to
avoid it. (I know you have worked to make that not the case, but to
implement that solution, a TC decision is required, because the systemd
people have made very clear that they do not want it. The earlier
rulings on network manager show that this is a pattern, not an
incident.) This is very much opposite to "use whatever you like best".
> Some of us still just consider this a technical issue.
Yes, but you do realize that people get really really really upset about
it, right? In ways that they don't over "you use emacs, you loser"?
> That's actually one of the points of dispute, quite frankly: one side
> believes that this is a technical problem to be solved by technical
> means (such as developing solutions like systemd-shim, or for that
> matter entirely better init systems), and the other believes that this
> is an ideological problem ("loose coupling", etc).
The systemd upstream and (AFAIK) maintainers are pushing an ideological
agenda that doesn't seem to fit with Debian. Yes, it is possible to
fight them with technical solutions, but the fact that there is a fight
comes from an ideological source. Claiming it is only technical ignores
the fact that it's so incredibly hard to reach consensus. How is that
possible for a mere technicality?
> I'm not at all convinced that Ian is capable of seeking and sustaining a
> peace rather than waging an eternal war. I *do* think the other members
> of the TC are quite capable of seeking peace, and not just the peace of
> having fully defeated all of one's current opponents.
Ian feels attacked and driven into a corner. And it seems he is right
about this. The others don't seem to feel as strongly that if this goes
the wrong way, it might mean the end of Debian. I think Ian does think
so, and that explains why he is so emotional about it. But you know
what? He might be right. I have seen several DDs now who have said
they don't understand DBus and do not know how to debug programs that
use it. And that they feel they are no longer in full control of their
machines. You may add me to that list, btw. That is disturbing. What
is more disturbing, is that I have not seen a response "it isn't so
hard, here's some documentation on what is happening, and how to inspect
and modify things that are broken". Either it really is so hard, or at
least that documentation doesn't seem to be available. That worries me
a lot. And I think systemd is a step further on that path to users not
understanding the machine. So I don't think it's a stretch to say this
may hurt Debian a lot.
Ps: If the documentation I ask for is indeed available, a link to it is
very welcome!
> > And not just from Ian's side: the pro-systemd amendment in the
> > current vote seems to say "we demand that you trust everything we
> > do, and we don't trust what you do". When I first read it my
> > reaction was "Woah! That's a declaration of war!" How anyone could
> > think it would be a good idea to include that in the amendment was
> > beyond me.
>
> That was my initial reaction as well. Then I saw the "bitter rearguard
> battles" comment, and realized that if the GR doesn't actually make a
> decisive statement with a strong air of finality, this issue will just
> keep going on interminably, preventing people from actually getting work
> done. If this is going to get all the way to a GR, let's have the GR
> actually *work*.
A GR that goes out of its way to *hurt* people can do only one thing:
drive people away. While that is a way of making things work, it is
exactly what you blame Ian for. I would be extremely disappointed if
that amendment is voted to the top.
> I'm quite sure Ian wants peace as well, but only expects to have it
> when all of his opponents are defeated.
Is that unreasonable, if his opponents want to destroy Debian? I'm sure
he'll be fine with the people surviving, and perhaps even contributing
to Debian. But if he thinks they are trying to destroy us, of course he
wants to stop them.
> See the issue that started this mail thread, regarding "bitter rearguard
> battles". As Sune said, I don't think it's reasonable to "assume good
> faith" there and pretend that was really a "oh, other people will
> probably keep fighting over this";
Actually, that is exactly what it looked like to me.
> besides, if it was, it would have applied just as well to both sides.
> (Unless Ian is specifically suggesting that the anti-systemd folks are
> less reasonable and less likely to actually accept the result...)
No, the other way; the pro-systemd people would start the battles even
after they would have won, is what I think he suggests, and given the
history I think that is a reasonable guess.
> > > We clearly have a pile of people who want to discuss and deal with the
> > > init system issue, many of whom are still capable of productive
> > > discussion and consensus-building. Many people are actively developing
> > > solutions to make the situation better.
> >
> > Such as "we as TC want to write up a statement; I'll do the work"? Or
> > is that an unacceptable way of forcing his opinion on others?
>
> "we as TC want to write up a statement" already implies that most
> attempts at productive discussion and consensus building has *failed*.
Which is true. And the rest of the TC agreed with him.
> And even then, I expect the members of the TC to actually engage in
> productive discussion and seek a consensus.
So why blame only Ian for not doing so? In contrast, I think the
discussion was so short because there was consensus from the start. Ian
suggested to write up a statement and everyone agreed (yes, not
protesting when Ian says "I'm going to write up a statement now" is
agreeing).
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:21:50AM -0800, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Bas Wijnen <wijnen@debian.org> writes:
>
> > The only problematic part I see is that he gets carried away at times.
> > That's a very minor issue, and I forgive him, as long as he isn't
> > insulting people.
>
> He has certainly insulted me.
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/06/msg00040.html
>
> If you don't know me very well, I suppose you could be forgiven for not
> realizing just how deeply insulting I find the assertion that I have
> *ever* behaved dishonorably about *anything* involving Debian.
I completely understand that, and how much, that hurts. I would feel
the same way. But it is not what I would call an insult. This may be a
language issue. To me, an insult is a statement that is made with the
purpose of hurting somebody. His statement was an expression of his
anger. Of course that hurts, and I'm sure he knows it does, but that is
not his reason for making the statement. He honestly believes that you
actually were dishonest. Of course, that makes it hurt even more.
I am much in favour of keeping our communication civilized; I voted for
the CoC for that reason and I am happy to see it resulting it sanctions
for people who are insulting others repeatedly (by my definition).
But I would be very uncomfortable with a rule that says you cannot say
things that hurt people. In this case, if Ian really believes this to
be true, he is entitled to say it. I would encourage the both of you to
have a discussion about this (in private), but whether you do that or
not, telling people they can't point out problematic behaviour because
the "problem-causer" would be hurt is a bad idea, IMO.
(This problem is more complex than that, though. I don't think we need
to accept people to repeat these statements endlessly.)
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:42:55AM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> I don't think it's a minor issue if a member of a committee that exists
> to arbitrate on a basis of technical arguments starts to repeatedly
> assert one side acts not only out of bad faith, but out of malice.
> You might want to investigate why someone wrote [1].
I think because he really believes that they are malicious. And he
might be right. As I wrote, I rather not investigate this myself.
> Do you expect people who are told they act out of malice to trust that
> this is still a fair decision process? I do not, and I think it's a
> good reason to ask somebody to consider to step back.
However, take his position for a moment: you believe that the systemd
folks are attacking Debian. The TC is possibly infiltrated by them as
well. Would you risk stepping down and being replaced by another
infiltrator? Of course you wouldn't! Which brings us to the next
message:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 02:09:36AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee?
>
> Someone pointed out to me privately that there's a much easier way of
> handling this. See the "Maximum term for tech ctte members" thread.
This would mean multiple people would be replaced, so that the
replacement isn't biased against one side of the battle.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 02:26:01PM +0000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> I'm not sure encouraging "if you hate Ian, vote for a maximum term for
> committee members" is very constructive.
Haha, I didn't read it that way. :-) I think "if you consider the
current situation with Ian a problem, this is a generic way to solve it
without bias to the systemd fight" is a better summary. ;-)
Thanks,
Bas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature