Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:40:57AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I disagree strongly with the latter part of that statement. Various >> people are still *upset* about the Editorial Changes GR, but at least >> from where I'm sitting, it did a lot to resolve the *argument*. In >> other words, there are far fewer people now arguing that the project >> really does intend to allow non-free documentation in main. There are >> more people upset about the fact that the project doesn't want to do >> this, but that's inevitable and more honest than the previous state. > Umm... the way I read this paragraph was - we didn't actually make any > real progress, but the back-and-forth movement was made in a direction > that you find honest (and therefore preferable[1]), so it's okay? :) I'm trying to draw a distinction between two different things: 1. Does Debian have a clear policy? 2. Are people happy with that policy? Prior to the GR, I believe the answer to 1 was no, which has practical problems. Different DDs were doing different things, the RMs had no clear guidance on what to allow into the release or not, the ftpmasters had no clear guidance on what to allow into the archive or not, and the status of non-free documentation was in limbo. This makes everyone's job harder and meant that we had regular ongoing discussions about which the project really wanted to do that mostly turned into rehashings of people's personal opinion. Before the GR, the answer to 2 was often also no, since people were unhappy with what the RMs would say or what the ftpmasters would say, or unhappy with what people filed as bugs, but since there was no official policy, some of the people who were unhappy would just ignore the whole thing. After the GR, I believe the answer to 1. became yes. We decided on a clear policy for the project as a whole, we provided clear direction to project delegates, and we reached a conclusion on what would be in main. It then became clear what bugs were RC and what bugs weren't (at least in the long run; I don't want to get into the short-term issues), developers knew what to expect, and we got clarity. As a result, the number of people upset under 2 increased because the people who were able to just ignore the issue when there was no clear policy couldn't ignore it any longer. There was therefore more public disgruntlement because we actually made a decision and it wasn't in the direction that everyone wanted. My argument is that people being unhappy with decisions is inevitable unless we only make uncontroversial decisions, and there are some decisions we have to make. Either we were going to allow non-free docs in main or not. Not making a decision, not answering yes to point 1, was somewhat dishonest in that in the long run it meant we were making an implicit decision to allow them without saying so or, alternately, hanging the RMs and ftpmasters out to dry by making them enforce something with no clear project consensus. We should not avoid making clear decisions just because it will expose people's unhappiness with the direction, because not making the decision is *also* a decision which *other* people will be unhappy with. Far better to make a clear decision so that people know where they stand. Then, if they feel like the project is going in the wrong direction and they want to try to reverse that decision, or even feel like they need to leave the project because of it, at least it's all straightforward, open, and clear. There isn't the murky "well, we actually made this decision but we're going to pretend that we didn't since we don't want you to be upset about it" feeling. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
