[sending this message to -project; it's off-topic for -devel] At 2026-01-26T10:59:39+0100, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > On 26.01.26 00:25, Daniel Gröber wrote: > > That state of affairs ultimately led to one team member carrying the > > vast majority of, the team's ongoing package review workload. > > > > Most recently [96.87%] of it to be exact. > > > > For years now. > > > > With no change in sight. > > > > Let that sink in for a minute. > > > > [96.87%]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2025/11/msg00222.html > > > > While this level of dedication to Debian volunteer work is truly > > admirable the imbalance in workload is not a hallmark of a > > well-functioning team and has resisted repeated attempts at > > improving the situation. > > > > Within the Debian community, there have long been complaints about > > the unpredictability of NEW processing time as well as > > nontransparent and rigid policy on both licensing and technical > > aspects. > > > > Along with the team's existing challenges this has created palpable > > frustration among Debian Developers, package Maintainers, and, > > reportedly, even more far-flung members of our community alike. > > > > While /effectively/ single-person teams are an unfortunate reality > > in some areas of Debian it's simply not a sustainable state of > > affairs for one of *the most foundational* areas of our project. > > wow, from a team member dealing with one task to a single-person team > within a few lines of text.
I have my own issues to raise with Daniel's mail, but I'll save (some of) them for a separate message. > Why don't you mention the other tasks that other team members had been > working on? How are people to know what those are? Are all of them within the team's delegation charter? If not, what else have the members been doing ex officio but without delegated authority? With that information, the DPL can amend a delegation's charter if necessary and appropriate. Does that delegated team produce reports to the DPL or to the membership as a whole? How frequently? How detailed are these? > Do you assume that only one person on the team was doing anything or > does this not fit into the argument why a complete team had to be > dumped? It is the responsibility of a delegate under the Debian Constitution to be accountable to the Project Leader and to the membership as a whole. The Debian Project is explicitly democratically organized, which means ultimately that all powers and authority ultimately arise from collective will and sufferance of its membership. Because we commit ourselves to not hiding problems (Social Contract §3), I personally think it would be best if delegates made reports to the entire community of Debian Developers in almost all circumstances. In the Debian Project, among certain teams in particular, there is a tradition, reinforced over multiple decades, of avoiding accountability or even basic communication about the conduct of delegated responsibilities. > This email is insulting and makes me really angry. That's not a helpful comment as such. Anger is fine, in my opinion, but you should take the time to work out what, specifically, is rousing your emotional response. I'll guess that you have an expectation that is not being met. You will make yourself better understood if you articulate that expectation explicitly. Sometimes, when we do this, the expectation we express comes across as sounding unreasonable. And even after spending some time wordsmithing it, it still seems that way. That is because we sometimes have unreasonable expectations. On the other hand, sometimes when we express reasonable expectations, people get angry with us--or, if empowered, carry out reprisals against us for stating them. While unpleasant, such episodes have great informational worth; see below regarding the presumption of good faith. > Even the Community Team, who should protect the Debian community > against such things, Where is it written in the Community Team's delegation charter that their job is to protect Debian Developers from experiencing feelings of anger? The Community Team is not empowered to dispose of our humanity, and I submit that it would be a dreadful threat to us if it were. Being human means experiencing negative feelings sometimes. Being an adult means managing those feelings responsibly and pro-socially. I've complained before about paternalistic attitudes among some people in this project. With this statement you are practically beseeching someone to be "daddy" and protect you from negative feelings. That attitude, whether I'm right about you in particular holding it or not, is deeply unhealthy in a commonwealth of adults engaged in a cooperative venture. > did support this content. Apparently. When I get some time I'll offer my view on that. > But one has to always assume good faith. I've never seen this principle so ill applied as in the Debian Project. A presumption of good faith is something one has in lieu of evidence. That presumption is a tool to start, in relative comity, encounters between people who are not well known to each other. When you have _evidence_ that is difficult or impossible to reconcile with a presumption of good faith, the presumption is overturned. If someone suggested that the Debian Project should continue to treat, say, Daniel Pocock with a presumption of good faith, I predict they'd be laughed at in their face. ...or someone would say they're "really angry", as you have. > How did Debian end up like this? That's an _excellent_ question. I propose that Debian Developers (and Debian Maintainers) spend time thinking for themselves about it. In particular, they should not divert themselves by looking to a paternal figure, of a disposition kindly or otherwise, to locate a perspective they can adopt uncritically. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
