Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
> Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-12-02 12:43:52)
> > And it is this very rule which is the problem.  If you propose to
> > solve the stop-energy maintainer deathgrip problem by abolishing
> > maintainership entirely, you need to replace it with something.
> 
> are you talking about technical disagreements?

I'm talking about any disagreements, including technical ones, yes.

> Isn't that what the TC is for?  In a world without maintainership
> and multiple people having different ideas about a technical problem
> concerning a package, if discussions between them have lead to no
> conclusion, would not the TC have the last word about what is best
> for the distribution as a whole?

That would be nice, wouldn't it.  In practice, however, the TC is
rarely capable of making a decision without agonising for months.
What will people do while the TC deliberates ?

Also, the TC would rapidly become overloaded if every technical
disagreement in the whole project had to be referred to them, because
there was no other lesser authority.

> I'd expect anybody doing an upload to do it with the best interest of the
> distribution as a whole at heart. If the content of the upload goes against
> what other people had in mind, then I'd expect them to discuss and find a
> solution. I would not expect the result to be multiple counter-reverting
> uploads from the involved parties. That'd just be rude.

The problem with this approach is that it strongly encourages the
creation of `facts on the ground' which it would be `rude' to revert.
I think if we were to abolish the institution of maintainership.


I'm afraid I really struggle to see what principle you and Stefano are
suggesting should replace maintainership as the prima faciae answer to
a disagreement.

"Don't be rude" is all very well, but we know that people have
different ideas about what is rude and what is not.  I worry that we
would encourage people to put their own idea about what is rude into
practice...

"Good fences make good neighbours".  Or, to put it another way, social
interactions work well when everyone has a shared understanding of the
norms.  The basic norms, particularly about who has authority for
which actions, need to be clear and fairly objective.

Right now our norm is maintainership.  I think it is too strong and we
should weaken it.

What concrete and objective norms do you want to replace it with ?

Ian.


-- 
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply via email to