On Thu, 12 Jan 2017, Martin Winter wrote:
Objection against something and a veto are different things.
I don't think there's much point having yet another argument about the
meaning of words.
way, but also accept to be overruled by a majority. But then you made
it clear that this isn’t a democracy or anything and this is your fork
and it’s your way or the highway.
"democracy"? what do you mean by that?
There isn't a single democracy on this planet where you can just go in
and immediately expect your voice to be heard. Hell, you're not even
_born_ with the right - you have to wait 16, 18+, years.
Further, even in democracies, there usually are ways to _protect_
minority and status-quo interests *from* the majority. Like
constitutional rights, independent judiciaries, establishment-biased
upper houses, etc.
In industry organisations, there often are establishment biases too.
E.g., the IETF, despite ostensibly being a consensus organisation, has a
hierarchy of WG chairs, ADs, etc., which can apply judgement to what
consensus is - and getting into those positions takes time to develop
Quagga worked on consensus, amongst a group of maintainers. I could
block things, yes, so could others. Had it grown stale, yes, sure.
The ways to fix that did not include ambushing me on a conference call,
calling a vote on a flimsy document, of people of varied experience in
- There was someone who attended who I'd never heard of before, until a
few working days earlier when they emailed to ask to join that call,
from a vendor with one recent bug report + diagnosis. Who we've never
heard from again since either.
How come they suddenly popped up for that call? It's a mystery. I note
a board member of NetDEF works at that said vendor, but I'm sure
that's a complete co-incidence.
- The document was largely agreeable goal stuff that no one would vote
Except, buried within was changing from maintainers consensus to some
unspecified wider community majority voting. The constitutional
implications of which were not pointed out .
- You had not mentioned, till that day I think, that the two main
agitators for this constitutional change (you and another) were in
fact close business partners.
- You ignored the detailed technical governance process I sent you more
than a year before that, in Jan '15. Which had actual workable
processes in it, and was based on the technical governance model I had
seen work inside Sun Microsystems.
Indeed, you never mentioned that anyone.
That document actually proposed _removing_ individual vetos, and
requiring two objections to block instead. (This was when I
trusted you a lot more than I do now). _You_ rejected that.
It was at that point (earlyish last year), with that call, that I
stopped believing you were acting fully in good faith on the governance
Because I care about Quagga
I believe you did, and still do to some extent. But I also believe you
have the self-interest of positioning NetDEF as the guardian of this
And it's not wrong to be self-interested, nor to care about this
codebase, per se. What I can't believe is that you don't realise I have
no less of the same self-interest as you. I have been working on this
code-base as long as anyone. I have put sweat and tears into it too.
I told you, and others, I was happy to _share_ the governance.
NetDEF contributions are greatfully accepted, but if you think it's
socio-politically a smart thing to barge in and start demanding the
project's governance be changed to suit you, and try run rough-shod over
the objections of the _founder_ (who did try engage on the topic, but
was ignored) with political games, then you have even fewer people
skills than I do. (I at least _know_ that I suck at politics).
2) Clarification if you want anyone from NetDEF to stop providing any
help on Quagga.
But, you already have.
Least, I see fixes in the FRR tree for my commits in Quagga that you
havn't sent here. E.g., Christian's stuff for the tags width.
(But, maybe technically you're not blowing smoke there, if that work by
Christian, David, etc., is paid for by some other org).
I didn’t expect to withdraw from it, but it sounds
like this is your wish. Happy to comply and no screaming needed. A
simple email with a clarification would be all that’s needed.
Are you offering to commit to keep the Quagga testing in place? To what
Your testing is great. It's really useful (other than that I can't
tinker with it directly). However, I was assuming the timing of access
to that was going depend on your fork.
Paul Jakma | p...@jakma.org | @pjakma | Key ID: 0xD86BF79464A2FF6A
Little hamster in running wheel had coronary; waiting for replacement to be
Fedexed from Wyoming
Quagga-dev mailing list