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

Groups > linux.debian.project > #11439 > unrolled thread

Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

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: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020 Sam Hartman <leader@debian.org> - 2020-02-17 19:20 +0100
    Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020 Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> - 2020-02-18 09:50 +0100
      Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th  2020 Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2020-02-18 15:30 +0100
      Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th  2020 Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2020-02-18 17:40 +0100
        Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th  2020 Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2020-02-18 19:50 +0100
          Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th  2020 Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2020-02-18 20:40 +0100
          Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th  2020 Paulo Henrique de Lima Santana <phls@debian.org> - 2020-02-20 17:50 +0100
        Re: Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August  9th 2020 Daniel Lange <DLange@debian.org> - 2020-02-18 20:40 +0100
          Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th  2020 Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2020-02-18 20:50 +0100
            Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th  2020 gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org> - 2020-02-18 21:10 +0100
              Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th  2020 Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2020-02-19 07:00 +0100
                Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th  2020 Ulrike Uhlig <ulrike@debian.org> - 2020-02-19 10:20 +0100
                  Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th  2020 gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org> - 2020-02-19 17:30 +0100
                Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th  2020 Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> - 2020-02-19 12:10 +0100
                  Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th  2020 Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2020-02-20 06:20 +0100
                    Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th  2020 Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> - 2020-02-20 08:20 +0100
                      Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th  2020 Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2020-02-20 14:20 +0100
                Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th  2020 Paulo Henrique de Lima Santana <phls@debian.org> - 2020-02-19 14:00 +0100
          Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020 Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-02-18 21:20 +0100
        debconf decision process (was Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal  2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020) Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-02-19 13:30 +0100
        Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th  2020 Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2020-02-19 21:30 +0100
          Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th  2020 Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-02-20 00:20 +0100
            Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th  2020 Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2020-02-20 06:30 +0100
              Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th  2020 Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-02-20 10:50 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#11439 — Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

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

>>>>> "Jerome" == Jerome Charaoui <lavamind@debian.org> writes:

    Jerome> Following the announcement of the DebConf20 location, our
    Jerome> desire to participate became incompatible with our
    Jerome> commitment toward the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
    Jerome> (BDS) campaign launched by Palestinian civil society in
    Jerome> 2005. Hence, many active Montreal-based Debian developpers,
    Jerome> along with a number of other Debian developpers, have
    Jerome> decided not to travel to Israel in August 2020 for
    Jerome> DebConf20.


I'm quite frustrated, disappointed and angry reading the above.

I had expressed a fairly strong discomfort with the anti-DC20 messaging
I got from the original contact about Montreal.
I was not expecting this sort of messaging to persist based on our
previous conversations.

I'm going to take a couple of days to calm down before making any
decisions, but this is not appropriate messaging in an event that Debian
supports.

In particular, we as a project made a decision about where we were
holding DebConf 20.
It's fine for people not to participate.
It would even be fine for people to  create some mechanism that
harnessed the energy of those who were not participating in a manner
that enhanced or somehow complimented DebConf.
As an example, people  in the elephant in the room BOF at DC19 talked
about working to enhance remote participation.

The above messaging is not that.
The above messaging  comes across as a condemnation of what the project
has decided to do, rather than something that supports our diversity and
compliments DC20 while supporting those who choose not to attend.


So, I'm going to take a couple of days and figure out what an
appropriate response is.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#11440

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

Le lundi, 17 février 2020, 19.19:02 h CET Sam Hartman a écrit :
> >>>>> "Jerome" == Jerome Charaoui <lavamind@debian.org> writes:
>     Jerome> Following the announcement of the DebConf20 location, our
>     Jerome> desire to participate became incompatible with our
>     Jerome> commitment toward the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
>     Jerome> (BDS) campaign launched by Palestinian civil society in
>     Jerome> 2005. Hence, many active Montreal-based Debian developpers,
>     Jerome> along with a number of other Debian developpers, have
>     Jerome> decided not to travel to Israel in August 2020 for
>     Jerome> DebConf20.
> 
> 
> I'm quite frustrated, disappointed and angry reading the above.
> 
> I had expressed a fairly strong discomfort with the anti-DC20 messaging
> I got from the original contact about Montreal.

To offer some contrast, although I can agree such introduction _could_ have 
been left out of the announcement email, I find the phrasing to be honest, 
transparent, and fair: it is not against Debian, not against DebConf, not 
against the DebConf Committee. It is merely explaining in full sight their 
reasons to a) not attend DebConf; b) organize that event at that time.

Specifically, I find the announcement OK _because_ the event dates do not 
directly conflict with DebConf20's.

> I'm going to take a couple of days to calm down before making any
> decisions, but this is not appropriate messaging in an event that Debian
> supports.

For the record, I disagree that such messaging is inappropriate on debian-
devel-announce@, nor as framing for an event "that Debian supports".

> In particular, we as a project made a decision about where we were
> holding DebConf 20.

I'd rephrase this as "the DebConf committee, as DPL delegates, made a decision 
about by whom DebConf20 was to be organized and where; this decision has not 
been overriden by a GR" [0,1].  There's nuance away from "we as a project made 
a decision".

> The above messaging  comes across as a condemnation of what the project
> has decided to do, rather than something that supports our diversity and
> compliments DC20 while supporting those who choose not to attend.

Sam; I think you're overreacting and would encourage you to re-read the full 
annoucement mail, and _specifically_ the part that you quoted; it "just" 
explains why some people from our community cannot consider attending 
DebConf20, and how they converted this constraint into organizing _another_ 
Debian gathering, at different dates.

Frankly, leaving this reasoning out of the announcement email would have felt 
disingenuous; as their unease with regards to DebConf20's location was known 
already.

Regards,
    OdyX

[0] https://lists.debian.org/debconf-team/2019/03/msg00021.html
[1] Disclaimer: I was a delegate when the decision was taken.

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

#11441 — Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:43:53AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>Le lundi, 17 février 2020, 19.19:02 h CET Sam Hartman a écrit :
>> >>>>> "Jerome" == Jerome Charaoui <lavamind@debian.org> writes:
>>     Jerome> Following the announcement of the DebConf20 location, our
>>     Jerome> desire to participate became incompatible with our
>>     Jerome> commitment toward the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
>>     Jerome> (BDS) campaign launched by Palestinian civil society in
>>     Jerome> 2005. Hence, many active Montreal-based Debian developpers,
>>     Jerome> along with a number of other Debian developpers, have
>>     Jerome> decided not to travel to Israel in August 2020 for
>>     Jerome> DebConf20.
>> 
>> 
>> I'm quite frustrated, disappointed and angry reading the above.
>> 
>> I had expressed a fairly strong discomfort with the anti-DC20 messaging
>> I got from the original contact about Montreal.
>
>To offer some contrast, although I can agree such introduction _could_ have 
>been left out of the announcement email, I find the phrasing to be honest, 
>transparent, and fair: it is not against Debian, not against DebConf, not 
>against the DebConf Committee. It is merely explaining in full sight their 
>reasons to a) not attend DebConf; b) organize that event at that time.

It's also adding a lot of unnecessary negativity, in my opinion. It's
easy enough to simply announce an event *without* this. It's another
Debian event, we have lots of them every year. There's no need for
further complaint.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky,
Tongue-tied & twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I...

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

#11442 — Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

Hey OdyX

On 2020/02/18 10:43, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>> I'm quite frustrated, disappointed and angry reading the above.
>>
>> I had expressed a fairly strong discomfort with the anti-DC20 messaging
>> I got from the original contact about Montreal.
> 
> To offer some contrast, although I can agree such introduction _could_ have 
> been left out of the announcement email, I find the phrasing to be honest, 
> transparent, and fair: it is not against Debian, not against DebConf, not 
> against the DebConf Committee. It is merely explaining in full sight their 
> reasons to a) not attend DebConf; b) organize that event at that time.
> 
> Specifically, I find the announcement OK _because_ the event dates do not 
> directly conflict with DebConf20's.

+1 to all of the above. If the dates were on or too close to DC20, I
would not want to attend or support this event in any way. Personally I
would leave the intro out too, but it is honest, and it's the reality.
Having a DebConf in Isreal is inherently political, you can shy way from
that fact or wish it away.

>> In particular, we as a project made a decision about where we were
>> holding DebConf 20.
> 
> I'd rephrase this as "the DebConf committee, as DPL delegates, made a decision 
> about by whom DebConf20 was to be organized and where; this decision has not 
> been overriden by a GR" [0,1].  There's nuance away from "we as a project made 
> a decision".

I haven't publicly said this before, but I believe it was a big mistake:

 * Not having a bid committee for that vote
 * Making it a private vote
 * Not announcing the the DCC would be the bid committee
   nor that it would be a private vote

I've brought these up in various private discussions before, and
unfortunately it's too late to change that decision without further,
possibly worse consequences, but I think the current DebConf committee
should strongly consider setting up a bid committee again (even if it
largely or mostly overlaps with the DCC, that might just be natural) and
keep the bid decision public as it was in prior DebConfs. I've seen
people express this on IRC before and I hope they speak up on more
formal channels too.

>> The above messaging  comes across as a condemnation of what the project
>> has decided to do, rather than something that supports our diversity and
>> compliments DC20 while supporting those who choose not to attend.

On a purely personal note, I find it in rather poor taste to talk about
diversity in the context of having DC in a country with an active
apartheid regime.

-Jonathan

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) <jcc>
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.

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

#11443 — Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 06:29:34PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> 
> On a purely personal note, I find it in rather poor taste to talk about
> diversity in the context of having DC in a country with an active
> apartheid regime.
> 
Right.  But choosing Brazil for a DebConf venue at a time when it did
not even have national-level anti-discrimination protection for LGBT
people[*] was done in good taste and was a victory for diversity?  Sure.

Regards,

-Roberto

[*] Such protections have since been enacted.

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

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

#11444 — Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

On 2020/02/18 20:31, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Right.  But choosing Brazil for a DebConf venue at a time when it did
> not even have national-level anti-discrimination protection for LGBT
> people[*] was done in good taste and was a victory for diversity?  Sure.

No one said or implied anything like that. Brazil was a whole different
kettle of fish and unfortunately things got even more complicated in the
country after the bid was accepted. In the case of Brazil I think it was
the right choice to go ahead with it, and I believe that it's the right
thing to do to support the DC20 team as well, regardless of where
someone stand about the host country. There's enough people who want to
attend and at this stage it would do more harm to cancel than to go
ahead, so imho the right thing to do is to help them where they need it,
and if you don't want to attend there, then the MiniDC a few weeks
before DC might be a good choice.

-Jonathan
-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) <jcc>
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.

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

#11488 — Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

Hi,

Em 18/02/2020 15:31, Roberto C. Sánchez escreveu:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 06:29:34PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:

> Right.  But choosing Brazil for a DebConf venue at a time when it did
> not even have national-level anti-discrimination protection for LGBT
> people[*] was done in good taste and was a victory for diversity?  Sure.

This is not true. What we had and still having is a homophobic president.

Best regards,

-- 
Paulo Henrique de Lima Santana (phls)
Curitiba - Brasil
Debian Developer
Diretor do Instituto para Conservação de Tecnologias Livres
Site: http://www.phls.com.br
GNU/Linux user: 228719  GPG ID: 0443C450

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

#11445 — Re: Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

Hi Jonathan

> I haven't publicly said this before, but I believe it was a big mistake:
>
>   * Not having a bid committee for that vote
>   * Making it a private vote
>   * Not announcing the the DCC would be the bid committee
>     nor that it would be a private vote

You have been part of the DCC at the time, just sayin' in case you forgot.

> I've brought these up in various private discussions before, and
> unfortunately it's too late to change that decision without further,
> possibly worse consequences, but I think the current DebConf committee
> should strongly consider setting up a bid committee again (even if it
> largely or mostly overlaps with the DCC, that might just be natural) and
> keep the bid decision public as it was in prior DebConfs. I've seen
> people express this on IRC before and I hope they speak up on more
> formal channels too.

Translation: I did not get the result I wanted, so I'd like a "bid 
committee" next time in the hope that decisions will be more in line 
with my personal convictions.

We held public review meetings for the DC21 bids. You did not care to 
show up for either of them.

> On a purely personal note, I find it in rather poor taste to talk about
> diversity in the context of having DC in a country with an active
> apartheid regime.

Roberto gave you an answer to this already.

"active apartheid regime" is politically loaded lingo and shows where 
you stand.
Employing it disqualifies rational arguments, if you had any.

Daniel

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

#11446 — Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

Hi Daniel

On 2020/02/18 21:15, Daniel Lange wrote:
>> I haven't publicly said this before, but I believe it was a big mistake:
>>
>>   * Not having a bid committee for that vote
>>   * Making it a private vote
>>   * Not announcing the the DCC would be the bid committee
>>     nor that it would be a private vote
> 
> You have been part of the DCC at the time, just sayin' in case you forgot.

Yep, I've said the privately in the DCC before, I'm not sure what you're
alluding to above.

>> I've brought these up in various private discussions before, and
>> unfortunately it's too late to change that decision without further,
>> possibly worse consequences, but I think the current DebConf committee
>> should strongly consider setting up a bid committee again (even if it
>> largely or mostly overlaps with the DCC, that might just be natural) and
>> keep the bid decision public as it was in prior DebConfs. I've seen
>> people express this on IRC before and I hope they speak up on more
>> formal channels too.
> 
> Translation: I did not get the result I wanted, so I'd like a "bid
> committee" next time in the hope that decisions will be more in line
> with my personal convictions.

Bad translation on your part.

> We held public review meetings for the DC21 bids. You did not care to
> show up for either of them.

That's good, the desire to have it public does not equate to a desire or
need for me to be there. IMO it's just important that this doesn't
happen behind closed doors again like last time.

>> On a purely personal note, I find it in rather poor taste to talk about
>> diversity in the context of having DC in a country with an active
>> apartheid regime.
> 
> Roberto gave you an answer to this already.
> 
> "active apartheid regime" is politically loaded lingo and shows where
> you stand.
> Employing it disqualifies rational arguments, if you had any.

It's really nothing controversial at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy, and if
you manage to find ambiguity in that, Netanyahu makes it very clear
where they stand on this matter:
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/11/702264118/netanyahu-says-israel-is-nation-state-of-the-jewish-people-and-them-alone

I'll leave it at that for tonight, I don't want to monopolize -project.
Feel free to take this further in private if you're sincere in
continuing a discussion about this.

-Jonathan
-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) <jcc>
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.

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

#11447 — Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

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

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:44:09 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:

> On 2020/02/18 21:15, Daniel Lange wrote:
> >> […] I think the current DebConf committee
> >> should strongly consider […]
> >> keep the bid decision public as it was in prior DebConfs.
> > We held public review meetings for the DC21 bids. You did not care to
> > show up for either of them.
> That's good, the desire to have it public does not equate to a desire or
> need for me to be there. IMO it's just important that this doesn't
> happen behind closed doors again like last time.

AFAICS the process for DC20 and DC21 seems to be the same:
- public review meetings for the bids
- a private decision meeting of the committee

I'd be happy to learn that my impression about the planned procedure
for the DC21 decision is wrong, I might easily have missed something.

Personally I much prefer public decisions.
 
Cheers,
gregor

-- 
 .''`.  https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
 : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D  85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
 `. `'  Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: Peter Ratzenbeck: Frosty & Cold

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

#11449 — Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

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

gregor herrmann dijo [Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:00:33PM +0100]:
> > That's good, the desire to have it public does not equate to a desire or
> > need for me to be there. IMO it's just important that this doesn't
> > happen behind closed doors again like last time.
> 
> AFAICS the process for DC20 and DC21 seems to be the same:
> - public review meetings for the bids
> - a private decision meeting of the committee
> 
> I'd be happy to learn that my impression about the planned procedure
> for the DC21 decision is wrong, I might easily have missed something.
> 
> Personally I much prefer public decisions.

FWIW, we are still pending to come to a conclusion regarding
DC21. This has been a tough process, and we will soon come to a
conclusion. Yes, I have been part of several prior DebConf
bid-choosing teams, and yes, sometimes the decisions are easier to get
to. Private (side-channel?) communication between committee/choosing
team members _always_ happens, but we have always tried to make the
reasoning available to the Debian community; this time it will not be
different.

Most probably, the results will be announced by mail (and not
communicated during a meeting), because the bid review process has led
us to need to decide in this way. I cannot speak for the previously
appointed DebConf Committee¹, but for the iteration I have been
delegated for, I can promise you we will not hide problems™ — That is,
once we choose, I can commit that we will not hide the reasoning
behind our choice. Some of it will not be full-public, as -of course-
it includes important human interaction bits, but all important points
will be made public.

¹ The fact that one of the Committee members left it, and is quite
  vocal on his opposition to the choice made by it, makes it clear to
  me that, even if the Committee had intended to keep quiet, the truth
  will come out. I'm sure Jonathan can comment on the decision process
  as he lived it. We don't have NDAs.

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

#11450 — Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

Hi all,

On 19.02.20 06:54, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> gregor herrmann dijo [Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:00:33PM +0100]:
>>> That's good, the desire to have it public does not equate to a desire or
>>> need for me to be there. IMO it's just important that this doesn't
>>> happen behind closed doors again like last time.
>>
>> AFAICS the process for DC20 and DC21 seems to be the same:
>> - public review meetings for the bids
>> - a private decision meeting of the committee
>>
>> I'd be happy to learn that my impression about the planned procedure
>> for the DC21 decision is wrong, I might easily have missed something.
>>
>> Personally I much prefer public decisions.
> 
> FWIW, we are still pending to come to a conclusion regarding
> DC21. This has been a tough process, and we will soon come to a
> conclusion. Yes, I have been part of several prior DebConf
> bid-choosing teams, and yes, sometimes the decisions are easier to get
> to. Private (side-channel?) communication between committee/choosing
> team members _always_ happens, but we have always tried to make the
> reasoning available to the Debian community; this time it will not be
> different.

Is the decision making process clearly documented somewhere?
Is the decision making body documented somewhere, i.e. ewhere can I find
out who is part of the committee? And how can people join this body?

ulrike

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

#11459 — Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

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

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:51:13 +0100, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:

> Is the decision making process clearly documented somewhere?

I don't think so …

> Is the decision making body documented somewhere, i.e. ewhere can I find
> out who is part of the committee? And how can people join this body?

The DebConf Committee is delegated by the DPL:
https://www.debian.org/intro/organization.en.html
(also with members)
and is reposible for this decision:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/11/msg00003.html

Cheers,
gregor

-- 
 .''`.  https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
 : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D  85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
 `. `'  Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: Pink Floyd: Another Brick In The Wall (part 1)

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

#11451 — Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

Hi,

On 18/02/20 at 23:54 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Most probably, the results will be announced by mail (and not
> communicated during a meeting), because the bid review process has led
> us to need to decide in this way. I cannot speak for the previously
> appointed DebConf Committee¹, but for the iteration I have been
> delegated for, I can promise you we will not hide problems™ — That is,
> once we choose, I can commit that we will not hide the reasoning
> behind our choice. Some of it will not be full-public, as -of course-
> it includes important human interaction bits, but all important points
> will be made public.

You kind-of make it sound like what you promise was not done by the
previous DC Committee. I'd like to point that details about the decision
process and the rationale were provided after the DC20 decision.
See the threads in
https://lists.debian.org/debconf-team/2019/03/threads.html

Specifically https://lists.debian.org/debconf-team/2019/03/msg00021.html

> Within the DebConf committee and the wider DebConf team there have
> been extensive discussions about Israel as a hosting country and we
> acknowledge that there will be some members of Debian that prefer to
> not travel to Israel for political reasons.
> 
> Still the Committee felt the upsides of the bid were significant and
> edged well over the Portuguese bid. But it was a close call. The five
> member DebConf committee had a two hour final decision meeting and a
> 3:2 vote in favor of Israel.

And https://lists.debian.org/debconf-team/2019/03/msg00034.html

> You can probably guess what they are, but here's a summary. Most of
> these came up in the public team meeting, before. Not all of us agree
> with all of these points, but they were all discussed:
> 
> * There hasn't been a DebConf in Europe (where the majority of regular
>   attendees live) for a number of years now - by the old norms we are
>   long overdue for one.
> * There are regular DebConf attendees (and orga members) who have stated
>   that they wouldn't attend a DebConf in Israel. Although Israel is near
>   Europe, we could expect lower attendance than Lisbon.
> * The Haifa bid has on-site University accommodation. This massively
>   simplifies things for the organisers.
> * Neither bid has a local team that is as strong as we'd like, but Haifa
>   appears to have a small edge here.
> * There are some nationalities that may find it difficult or even
>   impossible to visit Israel. This isn't new territory for us; we
>   regularly have to deal with attendees being denied visas.
> * Israel has big political issues. I would imagine that a large part of
>   our community objects to the country's behaviour toward the Palestinian
>   people, for example.
> * We've held DebConf in politically questionable countries before, and
>   don't want to preclude a bid for political reasons. Obviously no
>   country is perfect, and it's all relative. This may be further than
>   we've been, before, though.
> * Along those lines, it would be unfair to a bid team, to let them do
>   all the work to prepare a bid, and then reject it because of an issue
>   with their country. If there are political requirements for host
>   countries, they should be laid out in the submission guidelines.
> * We don't want DebConf to be endorsing a country or a city. But we're
>   aware that those optics are unavoidable. Wherever we go, we will bring
>   a large portion of our community, have a (presumably) great time, and
>   share memories of it for years to come.
> 
> Again, we were divided in which of these we supported, which we thought
> the most important, and which we'd state less diplomatically :P
> We spent a good couple of hours trying to build a consensus on a
> selection.  Once it was clear that that wasn't going to emerge, we went
> with a vote.


So:

On 18/02/20 at 23:54 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> ¹ The fact that one of the Committee members left it, and is quite
>   vocal on his opposition to the choice made by it, makes it clear to
>   me that, even if the Committee had intended to keep quiet, the truth
>   will come out. I'm sure Jonathan can comment on the decision process
>   as he lived it. We don't have NDAs.

I must say that I'm a bit shocked by this paragraph. If I summarize:
- you are a member of the current DebConf Committee.
- you take the moral high ground and promise transparency, while the
  transparency you promise is no better than the transparency of the
  DC20 decision process
- you allude that the Committee that made the DC20 decision intends to
  keep something quiet, and that there's a truth that needs to come out.

Lucas

(For context, I was a member of the Committee at the time of the DC20
decision, and resigned on 2019-09-17, see
<20190917135320.GA29926@xanadu.blop.info>)

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

#11472 — Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

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

Hello Lucas,

Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:45:43AM +0100]:
> > Most probably, the results will be announced by mail (and not
> > communicated during a meeting), because the bid review process has led
> > us to need to decide in this way. I cannot speak for the previously
> > appointed DebConf Committee¹, but for the iteration I have been
> > delegated for, I can promise you we will not hide problems™ — That is,
> > once we choose, I can commit that we will not hide the reasoning
> > behind our choice. Some of it will not be full-public, as -of course-
> > it includes important human interaction bits, but all important points
> > will be made public.
> 
> You kind-of make it sound like what you promise was not done by the
> previous DC Committee. I'd like to point that details about the decision
> process and the rationale were provided after the DC20 decision.

Yes. I think I can promise that, because I think the situation to be
different to what it was a year ago. And I know I'm getting ahead of
things; I do not want in any way to put pressure on the rest of the
DCC on this account — But I think we will decide by consensus, not by
voting. And that we can share the reasoning we are following.

> See the threads in
> https://lists.debian.org/debconf-team/2019/03/threads.html
> (...)

I acknowledge the decision and communication of it was quite harder
last year than what we are facing now.

> On 18/02/20 at 23:54 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > ¹ The fact that one of the Committee members left it, and is quite
> >   vocal on his opposition to the choice made by it, makes it clear to
> >   me that, even if the Committee had intended to keep quiet, the truth
> >   will come out. I'm sure Jonathan can comment on the decision process
> >   as he lived it. We don't have NDAs.
> 
> I must say that I'm a bit shocked by this paragraph. If I summarize:
> - you are a member of the current DebConf Committee.
> - you take the moral high ground and promise transparency, while the
>   transparency you promise is no better than the transparency of the
>   DC20 decision process
> - you allude that the Committee that made the DC20 decision intends to
>   keep something quiet, and that there's a truth that needs to come out.
> 
> Lucas
> 
> (For context, I was a member of the Committee at the time of the DC20
> decision, and resigned on 2019-09-17, see
> <20190917135320.GA29926@xanadu.blop.info>)

FWIW, I was refering to the "other" Committee Member who left (and I
named Jonathan in the paragraph you quote). I have talked with him,
and know (at least, part of) his reasoning both for the vote and for
the resignation. I didn't talk with you, so I didn't feel it fair to
lump you together with him in "is quite vocal on his opposition" and
"making it clear to me". No, I didn't target you with my aseveration.

I am a current DebConf Committee member, as you state. I can try to
offer as much transparency as needed; I truly hope we will not need to
go to a flame _again_ to explain and understand the reasons for our
decision.

I don't say that DC20's decision was "intended to keep something
quiet" nor that "there's a truth that needs to come out". I can only
comment on what I saw as an close-but-still-outsider. I know that the
DC20 decision crosses many personal issues, and that explaining it
thoroughly will likely hurt.

What I tried to say, and probably failed to communicate, is that I
hope we show our next decision is *not* loaded with personal issues
and sore feelings. Of course, not everybody will end up happy, but I
think everybody will be able to understand and hopefully accept our
decision as correct.

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

#11474 — Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

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

On 19/02/20 at 23:17 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Hello Lucas,
> 
> Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:45:43AM +0100]:
> > > Most probably, the results will be announced by mail (and not
> > > communicated during a meeting), because the bid review process has led
> > > us to need to decide in this way. I cannot speak for the previously
> > > appointed DebConf Committee¹, but for the iteration I have been
> > > delegated for, I can promise you we will not hide problems™ — That is,
> > > once we choose, I can commit that we will not hide the reasoning
> > > behind our choice. Some of it will not be full-public, as -of course-
> > > it includes important human interaction bits, but all important points
> > > will be made public.
> > 
> > You kind-of make it sound like what you promise was not done by the
> > previous DC Committee. I'd like to point that details about the decision
> > process and the rationale were provided after the DC20 decision.
> 
> Yes. I think I can promise that, because I think the situation to be
> different to what it was a year ago. And I know I'm getting ahead of
> things; I do not want in any way to put pressure on the rest of the
> DCC on this account — But I think we will decide by consensus, not by
> voting. And that we can share the reasoning we are following.

[..]

> I acknowledge the decision and communication of it was quite harder
> last year than what we are facing now.

If the project has a problem with the level of transparency of the DCC,
I think that it should be improved in all cases, not just when the
decision is easier to make...

> I don't say that DC20's decision was "intended to keep something
> quiet" nor that "there's a truth that needs to come out". I can only
> comment on what I saw as an close-but-still-outsider. I know that the
> DC20 decision crosses many personal issues, and that explaining it
> thoroughly will likely hurt.

Honestly, I don't what there's left to explain. As stated in Stefano's
email, a number of points were made about issues with both bids; we
tried to decide by consensus but failed, because different members
assigned different levels of importance to those issues; and, after
ensuring that none of us would change our mind, we ended up voting.

If I look back, I have two regrets:

One is that we did not provide a rationale with the decision email.
Merging Stefano's email with the decision email might have improved
things slightly. On the other hand, all issues were discussed in public
before.

The other one is that our decision making process doesn't have an early
check that there aren't any big unsolvable issue with the bid. In some
sense, we ignore those Elephants until the final decision, which makes
it harder to reject a bid based on those Elephants because in the
meantime, we asked the bid team to do a lot of work on detail-level
issues.
We could have something like a "bid acceptability check", at the start of
the process, to detect, discuss and formally decide on Elephants early
on.
One way to achieve that could be to poll regular DebConf attendees about
the bid, to measure the proportion of those who would not attend such a
conference. (Historically, we had issues with DC13 (because camp), DC10
and DC14 (because US), and DC18 (because Brazil) at least -- I don't
remember if there were discussions about DC11 and DC16 but there could
have been.)

Lucas

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

#11484 — Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 07:49:59AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> We could have something like a "bid acceptability check", at the start of
> the process, to detect, discuss and formally decide on Elephants early
> on.
> One way to achieve that could be to poll regular DebConf attendees about
> the bid, to measure the proportion of those who would not attend such a
> conference. (Historically, we had issues with DC13 (because camp), DC10
> and DC14 (because US), and DC18 (because Brazil) at least -- I don't
> remember if there were discussions about DC11 and DC16 but there could
> have been.)
> 
Another and clearly better and more inclusive approach would be to not
"penalize" people for the government under which they happen to live.
Everyone who is involved in the Debian project is making an actual
effort to improve the world and it would be far more productive to give
other members of the Debian community the benefit of the doubt when it
comes to these matters.

The only thing that polling regular DebConf attendees on the suitability
of future venues is likely to do is bias the venue selection process
based on the preferences of the poll respondents.  That seems less
inclusive rather than more inclusive.

Regards,

-Roberto
-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

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

#11453 — Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

Hi,

On 19/02/2020 02:54, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> 
> 
> Most probably, the results will be announced by mail (and not
> communicated during a meeting), because the bid review process has led
> us to need to decide in this way. I cannot speak for the previously
> appointed DebConf Committee¹, but for the iteration I have been
> delegated for, I can promise you we will not hide problems™ — That is,
> once we choose, I can commit that we will not hide the reasoning
> behind our choice. Some of it will not be full-public, as -of course-
> it includes important human interaction bits, but all important points
> will be made public.

I know we cannot speak for the previouls decisions, but I have followed 
the debates for Montreal, Hsinchu and Curitiba and all of them the last 
decisions were public.

Only for Haifa the decision was closed. I believe the Committee should 
back to keep the final decision public because It's not fair with the 
BIDs that lost.

Best regards,

-- 
Paulo Henrique de Lima Santana (phls)
Curitiba - Brasil
Debian Developer
Diretor do Instituto para Conservação de Tecnologias Livres
Site: http://www.phls.com.br
GNU/Linux user: 228719  GPG ID: 0443C450

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

#11448

Daniel Lange <DLange@debian.org> writes:

> "active apartheid regime" is politically loaded lingo and shows where you
> stand.

This is another way of saying that it clearly communicates a political
point of view.  Perhaps that was the goal.  If one holds the position that
this is an inherently political decision (as Ian stated and which I also
agree with), stating an opposing political position is a reasonable part
of that conversation.

> Employing it disqualifies rational arguments, if you had any.

Why?  Rational is not the same thing as apolitical.  I object to reserving
"rational" for only political viewpoints that agree with the speaker's.

The Debian Project made, through its delegated processes and procedures, a
political decision to host DebConf in Israel.  That decision was made on
the basis of various good, well-intended, and entirely reasonable
arguments, including (quite significantly in my opinion) expressing
support of the project members from Israel regardless of one's opinion
about the actions of their government.  Speaking as someone who also lives
in a country whose last two national governments have taken numerous
actions I find reprehensible, I find that argument persuasive.

That decision was also opposed on the basis of good, well-intended, and
entirely reasonable arguments about the impact of Israeli government
policies, on the efficacy of boycott by analogy to other historical
struggles, and on moral arguments about what obligations the rest of the
world has towards oppressed peoples.  Obviously, those arguments also rest
on facts which are in dispute by multiple parties, but just as with the
arguments for holding DebConf in Israel, they are largely made in good
faith.

Both positions are *inherently* and *inescapably* political.  The Debian
Project is also not going to somehow reconcile those positions and arrive
at a consensus political agreement on a political problem that has
challenged the world's most adept diplomats for well over 70 years.

This discussion is unavoidably political, and there's no point in trying
to argue that we can or should leave politics out of it.  All positions
that one can take carry political ramifications.  We might prefer that the
project somehow manage to stay out of issues like this, but I'm afraid
that's not possible; both accepting and refusing to consider a bid for a
conference in Israel are political positions.  And whatever way the
project decides, it is certain that groups in the project will continue to
(strongly) hold the opposing view.

Politics is not a dirty word.  Politics is how large groups of humans
argue and coordinate.  It's inescapable among large groups of people.  All
we can do as a project is to decide what political positions we're willing
to take, how to mitigate the effects of those decisions where appropriate,
how to manage the effects of those decisions on members of the project who
disagree with them, and how to provide enough space in the project for
opposing views such that political positions that are not *intrinsic* to
the project cause as small of an impact on project unity as possible.

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

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

#11452 — debconf decision process (was Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020)

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

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 06:29:34PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> [...] but I think the current DebConf committee
> should strongly consider setting up a bid committee again (even if it
> largely or mostly overlaps with the DCC, that might just be natural) and
> keep the bid decision public as it was in prior DebConfs.

same here. this worked well for 10 years and it saddens me that this has been
changed. it's good to try out new things and better to learn from mistakes.


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web