Re: [CTTE #746578] libpam-systemd to switch alternate dependency ordering
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 04:16:28PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: 5. We therefore overrule the decision of the maintainer of libpam-systemd binary package. The Depends entry systemd-sysv | systemd-shim (= 8-2) should be replaced by systemd-shim (= 8-2) | systemd-sysv A decision which lead to another great Debian Developer leave the ship! Great Work! Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141116155237.gb13...@physik.fu-berlin.de
Re: [CTTE #746578] libpam-systemd to switch alternate dependency ordering
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 04:52:37PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 04:16:28PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: 5. We therefore overrule the decision of the maintainer of libpam-systemd binary package. The Depends entry systemd-sysv | systemd-shim (= 8-2) should be replaced by systemd-shim (= 8-2) | systemd-sysv A decision which lead to another great Debian Developer leave the ship! Great Work! This demonization of the Technical Committee for doing their job under the constitution needs to stop. If you don't like the way the TC is structured under the constitution, feel free to propose a GR to change that. But if all you (and certain others across various Debian lists) are going to do is attack the members of the TC for making a decision they've been asked to in the way that they believe is technically correct, then I invite you to be the next Debian Developer to leave and I promise you I will not mourn your departure. It's a shame that Tollef has decided to step down from the systemd maintenance team (http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-systemd-maintainers/2014-November/004563.html, which I believe is what you're referring to with your mail). I have great respect for his technical abilities and consider him to have been a key voice of sanity throughout this painful process, and I hope that he doesn't actually view this TC override as an attack on the systemd maintainers. I would point out that the majority of those who voted in favor of this latest resolution also voted for systemd as the default in jessie. This is not an act of systemd haters, this is the TC providing technical guidance when asked to do so; and if the TC comes to a different conclusion than a maintainer who is acting in good faith, that is not an attack on that maintainer. Whereas you, on the other hand, are way out of line with your comment. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [CTTE #746578] libpam-systemd to switch alternate dependency ordering
Steve Langasek wrote: On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 04:52:37PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 04:16:28PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: 5. We therefore overrule the decision of the maintainer of libpam-systemd binary package. The Depends entry systemd-sysv | systemd-shim (= 8-2) should be replaced by systemd-shim (= 8-2) | systemd-sysv A decision which lead to another great Debian Developer leave the ship! Great Work! This demonization of the Technical Committee for doing their job under the constitution needs to stop. If you don't like the way the TC is structured under the constitution, feel free to propose a GR to change that. But if all you (and certain others across various Debian lists) are going to do is attack the members of the TC for making a decision they've been asked to in the way that they believe is technically correct, then I invite you to be the next Debian Developer to leave and I promise you I will not mourn your departure. Questioning the actions of the TC is well within the right of any developer/contributor. Or do you believe the TC somehow above any possible reproach? The first resort of criticism should not be to propose a GR to reform the TC, though it may well come to that eventually. But I would hope that a first step would be to ask the TC to consider its actions and its consequences rather more carefully than it has been before such measures become necessary. (More constructive criticism would certainly carry more weight, but given the current two-for-two pattern of decisions to departing developers, I don't think anyone particularly wants to see the TC go for the hat trick.) It's a shame that Tollef has decided to step down from the systemd maintenance team (http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-systemd-maintainers/2014-November/004563.html, which I believe is what you're referring to with your mail). I have great respect for his technical abilities and consider him to have been a key voice of sanity throughout this painful process, and I hope that he doesn't actually view this TC override as an attack on the systemd maintainers. I would point out that the majority of those who voted in favor of this latest resolution also voted for systemd as the default in jessie. This is not an act of systemd haters, this is the TC providing technical guidance when asked to do so; and if the TC comes to a different conclusion than a maintainer who is acting in good faith, that is not an attack on that maintainer. While it's certainly true that this particular TC decision seemed fairly reasonable in isolation[1], it's also perfectly understandable that the background or agreement on this decision would not be obvious to someone who hasn't necessarily read every mail on -ctte and all the tech-ctte bug reports. In the absence of that, it seems quite understandable to interpret this as yet another attempt by the TC to undermine systemd. [1] (one of the reasons I took part in refining drafts of it, with clarifying language explaining precisely why it would not affect the ongoing transition, though in retrospect that language was clearly insufficient) I'd also disagree with when asked to do so, considering that the asker was a TC member; in effect, the committee asked itself to decide, and subsequently answered, just as with 762194. And whether you consider it an attack on a maintainer / maintenance team or not, it's unreasonable to completely ignore the consequences of your decisions. I share your sadness that this and many other actions has driven Tollef away from the maintenance of a critical and difficult-to-maintain package. I do not, however, share your sanctimony. - Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141116212759.GA8535@thin
Re: [CTTE #746578] libpam-systemd to switch alternate dependency ordering
On 17 November 2014 05:37, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 04:52:37PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: A decision which lead to another great Debian Developer leave the ship! Great Work! This demonization of the Technical Committee for doing their job under the constitution needs to stop. I don't think a sarcastic Great Work! rises to the level of demonisation. On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 04:16:28PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: 5. We therefore overrule the decision of the maintainer of ... I hope that he doesn't actually view this TC override as an attack on the systemd maintainers. ... this is the TC providing technical guidance when asked to do so; and if the TC comes to a different conclusion than a maintainer who is acting in good faith, that is not an attack on that maintainer. The committee has five powers: 1. decide on technical policy 2. decide on overlapping jurisdictions 3. make decisions on a requestor's behalf 4. overrule developers 5. offer advice The tech ctte could've addressed this issue by providing policy guidance or by just offering advice, and assuming that the systemd maintainers would act on the advice or policy in good faith. Choosing to override the systemd maintainers was far from the most friendly available option. I don't think it's unfair to say that the technical committee is both the most powerful and least accountable group in Debian. Honestly I'd imagine most folks in Debian would expect anyone holding that level of power to act with a fairly high degree of caution, deliberation and, frankly, compassion for those who don't share those powers. Personally, I'd expect that power imbalance would imply an inverse courtesy imbalance -- that is, the technical committee members go out of their way to be considerate of their less-powerful co-developers, and tolerant of criticisms made about their actions. Let me put it this way: have the four committee members that were on the upstart side of the fence considered asking for the demonisation of the systemd developers to stop? The committee could do that under their power to make formal announcements about its views on any matter, and that might go some distance to re-establishing some trust. The systemd developers (both upstream and the Debian maintainers) certainly seem to have had more demonisation than the committee to me. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au
Re: [CTTE #746578] libpam-systemd to switch alternate dependency ordering
]] Anthony Towns On 17 November 2014 05:37, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: [...] I hope that he doesn't actually view this TC override as an attack on the systemd maintainers. ... this is the TC providing technical guidance when asked to do so; and if the TC comes to a different conclusion than a maintainer who is acting in good faith, that is not an attack on that maintainer. The committee has five powers: 1. decide on technical policy 2. decide on overlapping jurisdictions 3. make decisions on a requestor's behalf 4. overrule developers 5. offer advice The tech ctte could've addressed this issue by providing policy guidance or by just offering advice, and assuming that the systemd maintainers would act on the advice or policy in good faith. Choosing to override the systemd maintainers was far from the most friendly available option. Very much agreed, also, https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2012/08/msg00016.html ; second-last paragraph feels oddly appropriate. I don't think it's unfair to say that the technical committee is both the most powerful and least accountable group in Debian. Honestly I'd imagine most folks in Debian would expect anyone holding that level of power to act with a fairly high degree of caution, deliberation and, frankly, compassion for those who don't share those powers. Personally, I'd expect that power imbalance would imply an inverse courtesy imbalance -- that is, the technical committee members go out of their way to be considerate of their less-powerful co-developers, and tolerant of criticisms made about their actions. I'm very happy to see your work on this (on -vote). Thank you for that. (The term limit work is, I believe, a first, crucial step.) -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87vbmevg6p@xoog.err.no
Resigning from the Technical Committee
Hello everyone, I resign from the Debian Technical Committee, effective immediately. Doing this immediately is for the sake of clarity and for some of the reasons mentioned below, not to cause problems for anyone. I don't believe any issues are created at this point by an immediate resignation, since there are still six active members, plus Colin's willingness to continue on for a transition period. However, if I'm wrong, please let me know, and I can change the effective date. I'm making this choice for a variety of complicated reasons. I'm going to try to explain them, and hopefully I won't put my foot in my mouth or unintentionally hurt anyone by doing so. I'm going to write a tome in an effort to be clear. Apologies in advance for the giant wall of text. If any part of this doesn't make sense, or if any of it feels like an attack or a reaction to any single person or event, I'm happy to clarify. I would appreciate it if people would ask for clarification rather than making assumptions, as assumptions about other people's motives are one of the things that I find the most demoralizing about the Debian project right now. The short summary of what follows: * TC work and related conversations have become a large part of my work in Debian. This seems conceptually wrong to me. It's also not very fun. * Nearly every TC decision decision is now very fraught, and expressing those decisions, at least in the current framework, requires more skill, care, attention, and caution than I currently have mental or emotional resources to do. I am not doing work that I can be proud of, which means I either need to invest more resources or step down, and I don't have the additional resources at this time to invest. * It's no longer clear to me that my work on the technical committee is actually helping the project as a whole. I believe that means I need to either propose improvements or step down so that someone else who believes in the work can pick it up, and I have not come up with any convincing improvements. In the following, I'm going to say a lot of things about my personal thought processes and decisions. I know it's going to be tempting to read some of these statements as subtle commentary on other people's decisions and actions. Please don't. Where I have specific commentary, I'll make it openly; otherwise, I'm talking about my personal goals and emotions. Other people have different beliefs, goals, and reactions, and that's good and necessary. My decisions aren't their decisions, and having a wide variety of different people with different opinions in the Debian project is absolutely vital to its ongoing health. If anything in this speaks to you, I'm happy for it to be food for thought, but please draw your own conclusions based on your own goals and beliefs, and feel free to discard mine where you don't think they apply. When I was first invited to join the technical committee, nearly six years ago now, I was very active in the project in other ways: working on Lintian, helping to maintain Policy, and maintaining a fairly large number of packages. Since then, due to various changes in my own life, my time to work on Debian has dropped considerably. I've stepped down or become inactive in many of those other areas. Being on the technical committee takes a deceptive amount of time. It's something that I kept, while dropping other work, because normally the time committment is fairly low. However, I badly underestimated the amount of emotional effort and attention that it was going to require, and in a way that's worse than a time committment. At the moment, because my time is more limited, governance discussions constitute the vast majority of the time I spend working on the project. Sometimes, when I can find a good solution that makes everyone involved happy, this is fun. But it's mostly not; it's just work, not something that I do for enjoyment. One of the things I feel passionately about is Debian as a volunteer project, as an opportunity to work on the things that we find fun, exciting, or interesting, in a setting without the normal pressures of external deadlines, bureaucracy, and formal responsibility. But, right now, I'm not doing that myself. TC work over the past year has been difficult, exhausting, and not at all something I could call a relaxing or invigorating hobby. The actual investigation of different init systems was fun and felt productive and worthwhile; everything subsequent, not so much. I'm hoping to shift to working on that I can enjoy wholeheartedly. I'm also not comfortable being part of the governance process when I'm not deeply involved in the work. I think free software governance works best when it's done by people who have ongoing and direct invovlement in the work being governed. This was true for me when I was more active in Policy and Lintian work, and isn't true at the moment. In short, I don't want to be that person
Next CTTE Meeting date -d 'Thu Dec 4 18:00:00 UTC 2014'
Originally, the November meeting was scheduled for the 27th of November, but as this falls squarely on US Thanksgiving, we discussed last meeting moving it back to the 4th of December. I've now done that; if someone has a conflict, please reply, indicating so, so we can reschedule. The next CTTE Meeting is at date -d 'Thu Dec 4 18:00:00 UTC 2014' in #debian-ctte on irc.debian.org. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com Q: What Can a Thoughtful Man Hope for Mankind on Earth, Given the Experience of the Past Million Years? A: Nothing. -- Bokonon _The Fourteenth Book of Bokonon_ (Vonnegut _Cats Cradle_) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141117015750.gd32...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Processed: retitle 766708 to Revert gcc cross-building changes
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: retitle 766708 Revert gcc cross-building changes Bug #766708 [tech-ctte] Request to override gcc maintainer changes breaking Changed Bug title to 'Revert gcc cross-building changes' from 'Request to override gcc maintainer changes breaking' thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 766708: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=766708 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.141619112327898.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
