Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Russell Stuart <russell-debian@stuart.id.au>
Newsgroups: linux.debian.project
Subject: Re: Expulsions Policy
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2019 05:40:01 +0100
Message-ID: <xcLUB-Rv-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <xcvd8-7Er-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <xcvGa-83B-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
Old-Return-Path: <russell-debian@stuart.id.au>
Reply-To: russell-debian@stuart.id.au
Disposition-Notification-To: russell-debian@stuart.id.au
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-v31P6uYCG6vlOGgyA4tG"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 103
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.project:10152


--=-v31P6uYCG6vlOGgyA4tG
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 2019-01-04 at 10:57 +0000, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
> You are misrepresenting this: it has been said outside of this list
> that this does not represent an expulsion procedure but a procedure
> that makes it possible for DDs to make DAM consider an removal of
> privileges, because that's what it is.

OK, could somebody clear something up for me please?  Does Debian have
a procedure / policy or something saying what triggers the DAM moving
down the road towards a Developers expulsion (so it's clear when they
must act), and what procedure they follow when expel someone.  I
thought that was it.  Apparently not.

A group having no formal procedures for the decision the DAM just made
is fine for 3 or 6, risky for a 20, and a sure recipe for what I just
witnessed for an organisation as large as Debian.

> - Another group of people wants to escalate this discussion to -vote
> and seems to be equally working on yet another proposal, as far as I
> understood.

They are being very quiet about it, as there were no posts to -vote
this month, and 3 last month all of which were spam.

If you are referring to the proposed GR, they have said repeatedly (to
the point I'm sure they getting tired of it) it's about reversing a
single decision.  It is not about policy, and they appear to be doing
everything to keep policy or any comment of how the DAM implemented out
of it.  We are discussing to different things.

> - DAM has not had the time to react and it has been asked explicitly
> and several times to give them this time.

I'll put it bluntly: they should not need time.  They've just made one
gravest of decisions a Developer one could make.  If they did that
without compiling a dossier of evidence, and then followed a clear line
of reasoning to the decision, then it has to be made clear to them they
haven't done their jobs well.

As it happens, we know they did most of these things.  Kudo's to them.=20
Perhaps it is not quite up the standard they would like given it was a
private email, perhaps because they thought it would remain so.  But
even so we are talking minor polishing here - a few hours of work at
most.  Thinking up a post hoc justification of the decision would take
longer, of course.  But if they need to do that, it's an indicator they
are not confident their reasoning is good enough to convince the
community at large.  That means they didn't do thorough job before they
made the decision, and they are re-visiting it.  If they are indeed
doing that one the options on the table should be their reasoning was
wrong, and consequently they need reverse it.

To repeat: needing time to think up a justification for your actions
when to do your job needs very careful justification before you act is
not a good look.

> - Did you consider communicating with DAM before writing here?

Do you see the first sentence?  It said: "It's been made plain to me
I've done a bad job of explaining myself on debian-private".  Obviously
I didn't just consider it: I did it.

> Please: don't push more on yet another mailing list until the above
> points are somewhat settled, i.e. DAM has had time to react and the
> other group has started circulating their draft, if they still plan
> to do so.

Sorry, no.  To me that sounds like a very poor way of going about
things.  If I was the DAM I'd prefer to get a lay of the land before I
acted a second time given the first attempt had such an unpleasant
outcome.  I'd want others to throw up ideas and see how the community
reacts to them, letting the rest of the project do the advocacy work
and take the associated heat.  Once the possibilities have been
explored then I'd make my second announcement, hopefully using what
I've learnt to avoid a repeat performance.

I'll continue behave as I would want others behave towards me.
--=-v31P6uYCG6vlOGgyA4tG
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=dsPP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-v31P6uYCG6vlOGgyA4tG--