Bug#975075: tech-ctte: non-systemd dependencies in non-NM packages
General arguments about how the TC should conduct its business do not belong on this bug. I'd appreciate it if replies to this message are directed to a different place than this bug. We've established that the TC is operating consistently both with its historical process and with currently permitted behavior for a group of Debian developers. You're making an argument about what the TC's behavior should be that is general, not specific to this issue. Please make that argument in a general forum and do not tie it to this issue. You're also making an argument that has been made before without choosing to avail yourself of the history of the discussion on TC privacy. My recommendation would be to find someone who agrees with you who has followed that history and learn it--at least the parts of the history that support your position. Your argument would come across stronger if you did. > "Felix" == Felix Lechner writes: Felix> Hi, Felix> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:48 PM Sandro Tosi wrote: >> >> the ability to talk privately with the committee is something >> CTTE has allowed for a long time Felix> Debian has many great traditions, but the Magna Carta is much Felix> older. I found a great article about it ([1], p. 5): Felix> "the simple human need for fairness, reflected in western Felix> jurisprudence since at least 1215 when it was pronounced in Felix> the Magna Carta, underlies the legal concerns about ex parte Felix> communications during administrative decisionmaking Felix> processes. Fairness certainly requires an impartial Felix> decisionmaker, and often the appearance of impartiality can Felix> become as important a factor in the legal review of fairness Felix> as actual impartiality." Fortunately for all of us, the TC is not a legal body, and this is not a legal dispute process, nor does jurisprudence apply as a concept. Yes, you can consider whether concepts from jurisprudence should wrap over to Debian processes, but you need to actually justify that, and consider the trade offs. It is unsurprising to me that the trade offs for a legal process that can deprive someone of property and life work out differently than the trade offs for a body charged with choosing a technical path for an operating system. That's true even when people are emotionally invested in the outcomes. Fairness is one thing that someone might value. It tends to be highly valued in jurisprudence, but other things might be valued more highly in a proceeding like the TC. And you don't get fairness when the process is emotionally draining enough that key stakeholders refuse to cooperate.
Bug#975075: tech-ctte: non-systemd dependencies in non-NM packages
Hi, On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:48 PM Sandro Tosi wrote: > > the ability to talk privately with the committee is something CTTE has > allowed for a long time Debian has many great traditions, but the Magna Carta is much older. I found a great article about it ([1], p. 5): "the simple human need for fairness, reflected in western jurisprudence since at least 1215 when it was pronounced in the Magna Carta, underlies the legal concerns about ex parte communications during administrative decisionmaking processes. Fairness certainly requires an impartial decisionmaker, and often the appearance of impartiality can become as important a factor in the legal review of fairness as actual impartiality." The State of Hawai'i publishes a simpler guidance prohibiting private communications with a judge. [2] Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] https://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Member-Engagement/Professional-Departments/City-Attorneys/Library/2016/Annual-2016/10-2016-Annual_Calonne_Lets-Ex-Parte!-The-Limits-a.aspx [2] https://www.courts.state.hi.us/self-help/exparte/ex_parte_contact
Bug#975075: tech-ctte: non-systemd dependencies in non-NM packages
Sandro Tosi dijo [Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 08:47:22PM -0500]: > the ability to talk privately with the committee is something CTTE has > allowed for a long time; it's a two-sided coin: it can prevent heated > exchanges, but it can also leave a sour taste in the petitioner's > mouth. > > While i would tend to agree that it's slightly unfair, i've never been > on the other side to judge it fully. While we discussed the 2016/002¹ and 2016/004² GRs, about the declassification of debian/private, we discussed the argument that any group of people (and, certainly, any group of Debian developers) could set up a private communication channel. ¹ https://www.debian.org/vote/2016/vote_002 ² https://www.debian.org/vote/2016/vote_004 We do, yes, maintain some private communication while working officially as the Technical Committee - and it's a known fact. We try to maintain as little as possible contact with maintainers that are part of a dispute... But sometimes, it's the only way to move forward. We have to acknowledge not all DDs have the same personal skills. Disputes are draining for everybody, but some people might find it even harder. Engaging directly with a person with whom you already have a story of tension is something mnay people will do their best to avoid. So, yes, sometimes we will use private communications, and try to serve as a channel between the parts through which the essence of the communication, without the thorns and the pain, can better flow. Of course, there is a committment that we will share the fact this communication took place, and we will communicate the contents to the community at large. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
