Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:55:30PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
Hi Chris,
>...
> I have always instinctively felt such things to be antithetical to the
> spirit of Debian development so should only be applied in extreme
> circumstances. With respect to the frustrations expressed here and
> elsewhere, I don't believe we have reached that point just yet.
>
>
> > rules that appear to be pointless and only designed to create
> > additional work set by people with absolute powers
> […]
> > reasons that appear to be arbitrary and pointless, or there
> > is nitpicking
> […]
> > a real risk that people might be leaving the project
>
> I'm afraid I simply can't reply without making a more general comment
> with respect to this kind of argument style.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I *completely* understand and empathise with the
> frustrations here, but do we really want to a culture in Debian where
> it is acceptable to publically belittle others' efforts using such
> emotionally loaded words or in such a combatitive / adversarial manner?
you omitted the relevant part from my email:
> BTW: When I use the word "appear" this means that something is
> perceived as being this way, and it is possible that there
> is a good reason that is just not communicated properly.
For many people who are not a member of the ftp team,
the actions of the ftp team have a clear adversarial
effect on both the work and motivation.
When something does "appear to be arbitrary and pointless" the problem
might be either an actual arbitrary decision or just a lack of
communication regarding the rationale.
> I'm sure many Developers have thick skins and perhaps even take pride
> in conversing in an "objective" way, but do we really think this is best
> way as a Project to get things done? I personally don't and I believe
> that the silent majority not find satisfication, purpose or enjoyment
> from such a community.
>
> If you will permit me to exaggerate for a moment, if anybody is leaving
> the Project it is due to sustained exposure to such low-level
> toxicity. :(
There are two orders of magnitude of people more in the project that
need a thick skin due to the toxity of the intransparent NEW handling
of the ftp team than there are members in the ftp team.
The silent majority just tends to be on the "follow the orders of the
ftp team no matter whether they make sense" side of things, since there
is nothing short of a GR a normal DD could do about it.
Publishing the rules with a clear rationale would bring transparency,
reducing the frustration about this.
In some cases it would be clear why the ftp team makes some decisions,
in other cases it might even reveal that a rule does not make sense and
could be abolished.
As an example for a rule that does not make sense, recently a member of
the ftp team stated on debian-devel that the contents of NEW cannot be
made available to people outside the ftp team since it might not be
distributable, and that this is not expected to be changed.
It was quickly pointed out to this member of the ftp team that most of
the time exactly this contents is already publicly distributed by Debian
on alioth/salsa by the time it enters NEW.
There are options to improve the situation for everyone in Debian
(including the ftp team) once there is transparency on the rules
and the rationale.
>...
> With regard to your request for a timeline or schedule, whilst targets
> of this kind can often help prioritisation and focus work, applying my
> best judgement I do not believe that imposing an ultimatum on the ftp-
> team to be the best way forward here.
>...
The ftp team has repeatedly stated that it is working as a team and
that decisions are not arbitrary decisions by individual team members.
This implies that for tasks like NEW handling there exist guidelines
in some form, that might need some polishing before publication.
The ftp team is granted powers over the work of all people in Debian
directly from the DPL, and the only person in the project who is able
to push for improvements in this area is the DPL.
The only alternative would be a GR to override the DPL decision
regarding the ftp team delegation, and no matter the outcome this
would be ugly.
It is therefore disappointing when a DPL candidate tries to wiggle out
of making a commitment to get such a longstanding conflict inside the
project resolved within a reasonable amount of time.
> Best wishes,
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: