Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #13809 > unrolled thread

Re: Categorially refusing to exercise DPL powers (was: ITN procedure?)

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Categorially refusing to exercise DPL powers (was: ITN procedure?) Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2025-05-08 21:40 +0200
    Re: Categorially refusing to exercise DPL powers (was: ITN procedure?) "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2025-05-08 22:40 +0200
      Re: Categorially refusing to exercise DPL powers Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2025-05-08 22:50 +0200
        Re: Categorially refusing to exercise DPL powers "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2025-05-08 23:20 +0200
          Re: Categorially refusing to exercise DPL powers Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2025-05-09 03:10 +0200
      Re: Categorially refusing to exercise DPL powers (was: ITN procedure?) Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2025-05-09 20:30 +0200

#13809 — Re: Categorially refusing to exercise DPL powers (was: ITN procedure?)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

G. Branden Robinson dijo [Thu, May 08, 2025 at 03:49:08AM -0500]:
>> > > this GR does happen (and I'm confident it will), someone else will be
>> > > DPL.
>> >
>> > In future DPL campaigns, I encourage the electorate to insist that each
>> > candidate disclose which powers of the office they categorically refuse
>>                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > to exercise.
>>
>> I think your paraphrasing of my statement is wrong.
>
>I don't; your clarification reinforces my interpretation.
>
>> Explanation for my initial statement: This reflects a personal
>> judgment, not an absolute rule.
>
>A rule doesn't have to be absolute to be general--in other words,
>categorical.  Moreover, one way to interpret accession to the office of
>DPL through election is that the event reflects a general expression by
>the developers of trust in the winning candidate to exercise one's
>personal judgment wisely.
>
>That's good for you, and potentially good for the Project.  But we
>should also have a clear idea of what we can expect of our candidates in
>terms of the exercise of the constitutional powers of the office.
>
>Would you be more comfortable with me characterizing your position as,
>"I intend not to exercise the DPL power of initiating a GR except as an
>emergency measure, have not observed any qualifying emergency in
>Debian's history, and do not foresee one arising during my term."?
>
>If not, I am eager and intensely curious to hear of the exceptional
>circumstances you've contemplated.

This would be all clear, Branden, were it not that a large majority of past
DPLs (if not _all_ of them, I cannot at this moment devote time to finding
the history behind each of our GRs) have refrained from doing so.

I guess that Andreas' mail (or even the constitutional text) could be read
as "there are exceptional circumstances for which a GR might be expeditely
started by the GPL, without requiring seconds, skipping many usual
steps". The DPL has the power to judge if we have reached said exceptional
circumstances. It does not happen often, and our current DPL seems not to
want such an occurrence to happen during his tenure.

– Gunnar.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13810

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

[dropping -devel from distribution list; this issue is non-technical]

Hi Gunnar,

At 2025-05-08T13:35:12-0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> G. Branden Robinson dijo [Thu, May 08, 2025 at 03:49:08AM -0500]:
> > A rule doesn't have to be absolute to be general--in other words,
> > categorical.  Moreover, one way to interpret accession to the office
> > of DPL through election is that the event reflects a general
> > expression by the developers of trust in the winning candidate to
> > exercise one's personal judgment wisely.
> > 
> > That's good for you [Andreas Tille, incumbent DPL], and potentially
> > good for the Project.  But we should also have a clear idea of what
> > we can expect of our candidates in terms of the exercise of the
> > constitutional powers of the office.
> > 
> > Would you be more comfortable with me characterizing your position
> > as, "I intend not to exercise the DPL power of initiating a GR
> > except as an emergency measure, have not observed any qualifying
> > emergency in Debian's history, and do not foresee one arising during
> > my term."?
> > 
> > If not, I am eager and intensely curious to hear of the exceptional
> > circumstances you've contemplated.
> 
> This would be all clear, Branden, were it not that a large majority of
> past DPLs (if not _all_ of them, I cannot at this moment devote time
> to finding the history behind each of our GRs) have refrained from
> doing so.

I agree.  We haven't established a precedent for the DPL's exercise of
§5.1.5 power despite its availability for over 25 years.

In my own term I did give serious thought to initiating a GR for the
specific purpose of surveying the preferences of the Developers, but I
neglected that opportunity, as I did others.  As I recall, my internal
counterargument was a concern that the developers might have felt the GR
process to be a waste of their time "just to conduct an opinion poll".
That may remain a hazard, but since (as far as I know) it _still_ hasn't
been tried, I would now say that if an appropriate issue presented
itself to the DPL, they should go ahead.  If the GR process is perceived
as tedious or not worth the effort, then all of the ballot options
(excepting possibly "further discussion") will fail to pass the quorum
requirement, which I'd interpret as a clear signal of indifference from
the electorate.

That, too, can be useful information for us to have.

It could also prompt DPL action under §5.1.4.

"Make any decision for whom no one else has responsibility."

> I guess that Andreas' mail (or even the constitutional text) could be
> read as "there are exceptional circumstances for which a GR might be
> expeditely started by the GPL, without requiring seconds, skipping
> many usual steps".

Nothing, I mean nothing, in the text of the Debian Constitution implies
a reservation of this power to exceptional circumstances.  It could have
said so, as with §5.1.3...

"[The Project Leader may:] Make any decision which requires urgent
action.  This does not apply to decisions which have only become
gradually urgent through lack of relevant action, unless there is a
fixed deadline."

...but no similar language is present in §5.1.5.

(Notice that this rule has an exception, then an exception to the
exception.  Reviewing the "system library linking" exception to the GNU
GPL may be good practice for mentally modeling such things. ;-) )

> The DPL has the power to judge if we have reached said exceptional
> circumstances.

If we strike the word "exceptional", I agree.

> It does not happen often, and our current DPL seems not to want such
> an occurrence to happen during his tenure.

I agree that that very much appears to be Andreas's philosophy of
leadership, and as I said it is a conscionable one.  And he'd be within
his rights to change his mind some time in the next 12 months.

Regards,
Branden

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13811 — Re: Categorially refusing to exercise DPL powers

"G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> writes:

> I agree.  We haven't established a precedent for the DPL's exercise of
> §5.1.5 power despite its availability for over 25 years.

Sam proposed several options in https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_002
under §5.1.5 as DPL.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13812 — Re: Categorially refusing to exercise DPL powers

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

At 2025-05-08T13:33:54-0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > I agree.  We haven't established a precedent for the DPL's exercise
> > of §5.1.5 power despite its availability for over 25 years.
> 
> Sam proposed several options in
> https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_002 under §5.1.5 as DPL.

Aha!  Thanks!

Did the heavens fall?  ;-)

Regards,
Branden

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13813 — Re: Categorially refusing to exercise DPL powers

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

>>>>> "G" == G Branden Robinson <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> writes:


    G> Aha!  Thanks!

    G> Did the heavens fall?  ;-)

A little bit.  I actually think we had a bit more trouble with the
voting system than we did with the DPL proposing options.
Among other things, there was friction with the DPL both being able to
propose options and (as a member) to be able to call for a vote. There
was friction between my desire to  actually get things to a vote and
a desire for a late arriving option.
we've resolved that by updating the voting system.

I would encourage future DPLs to propose GRs.
My experience was that most of the people interested in developing
options were fairly invested in the topic at hand (init
systems/systemd.)
So you tended to draw out the most extreme options.

I did have an opinion on the issue, and by the time the vote concluded a
much stronger opinion than I had when I drafted the options.
but I was in a position to listen to a bunch of people and to try and
pull apart some options in the middle of the spectrum that apparently
appealed to the voters even if none of the people most invested in the
issue would have been motivated to propose those options.

The init system discussion was still very charged. But I think having
those options allowed us to move past that discussion in ways that the
previous discussions before the TC and previous attempts at a GR did
not.
All that previous work was very important in setting the stage and
letting us cogitate.

So, yes, that GR is one of those things I look back on with significant
pride. I would encourage future DPLs to consider that tool. But I think
a DPL needs to be careful to use that power to drive project decisions
and to make sure that a diverse set of points of view are represented on
the ballot.

In effect I tried to sponsor options that I thought  were in the cloud of
possibility around project consensus.
I withdrew one of my options because other people took it on with
slightly different wording and I did not see much difference in effect.

Another group wanted me to sponsor an option that was even more pro init
diversity. I didn't because I thought that option was too far outside of
what  the project was interested in: I thought we already had a
consensus against that direction. They got enough sponsors on their own,
and my reading of the vote suggests my guess that we had already decided
against that direction was correct.

A couple of other people came forward with options. For example Ian had
a proposal that was a different compromise than the ones I approached.

I think all together we did a good job of having the options on the
table so that everyone felt there was at least one option on the ballot
that was a good fit for their position.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13815

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

G. Branden Robinson dijo [Thu, May 08, 2025 at 03:20:08PM -0500]:
>> > A rule doesn't have to be absolute to be general--in other words,
>> > categorical.  Moreover, one way to interpret accession to the office
>> > of DPL through election is that the event reflects a general
>> > expression by the developers of trust in the winning candidate to
>> > exercise one's personal judgment wisely.
>> >
>> > That's good for you [Andreas Tille, incumbent DPL], and potentially
>> > good for the Project.  But we should also have a clear idea of what
>> > we can expect of our candidates in terms of the exercise of the
>> > constitutional powers of the office.
>> >
>> > Would you be more comfortable with me characterizing your position
>> > as, "I intend not to exercise the DPL power of initiating a GR
>> > except as an emergency measure, have not observed any qualifying
>> > emergency in Debian's history, and do not foresee one arising during
>> > my term."?
>> >
>> > If not, I am eager and intensely curious to hear of the exceptional
>> > circumstances you've contemplated.
>>
>> This would be all clear, Branden, were it not that a large majority of
>> past DPLs (if not _all_ of them, I cannot at this moment devote time
>> to finding the history behind each of our GRs) have refrained from
>> doing so.
>
>I agree.  We haven't established a precedent for the DPL's exercise of
>§5.1.5 power despite its availability for over 25 years.
>
>In my own term I did give serious thought to initiating a GR for the
>specific purpose of surveying the preferences of the Developers, but I
>neglected that opportunity, as I did others.  As I recall, my internal
>counterargument was a concern that the developers might have felt the GR
>process to be a waste of their time "just to conduct an opinion poll".
>That may remain a hazard, but since (as far as I know) it _still_ hasn't
>been tried, I would now say that if an appropriate issue presented
>itself to the DPL, they should go ahead.  If the GR process is perceived
>as tedious or not worth the effort, then all of the ballot options
>(excepting possibly "further discussion") will fail to pass the quorum
>requirement, which I'd interpret as a clear signal of indifference from
>the electorate.
>
>That, too, can be useful information for us to have.

Right. I have also argued (and spent too much time looking for said
messages... I won't be able to back my saying with a reference) that GRs
should be seen as a _formal_ way to poll the developers, not as something
that scares us. Not everybody shares that view, however; GRs have the
tendency to be divisive, or at least, to be percieved as requiring huge
amounts of textwalls.

I replied to your earlier mail because I felt uneasy by what I percieved as
a characterization of Andreas performing "under par" as a DPL by not
wanting to use his powers to start a GR. And yes, Sam not only used this
power, but explicitly included it in his 2019 DPL platform:

     I think the DPL's ability to propose general resolutions is
     under-utilized. I think that having the DPL propose a GR including the
     major options could be a much less confrontational way to bring closure
     to an issue than having an individual developer propose a GR and seek
     seconds. If the process feels a lot more like polling the project and
     guiding the resolution to a policy discussion, I think voting can bring
     things to closure.

However, that was _his choice_ to make. No other DPLs (that I remember)
have used this power. So, I don't think it's an unduly expectation for
Andreas to use it just because the Constitution grants him the right to do
so — most DPLs in our history (including the one I'm currently replying to)
haven't done so. No shame nor underperformance in it.

Greetings!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web