Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.vote > #5090 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-04-04 11:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2025-05-05 14:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 63 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.vote
Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-04 11:10 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2025-04-04 12:00 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-04 12:30 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 13:00 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-04 13:10 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> - 2025-04-04 21:00 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-04 21:40 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-04 13:10 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-04-04 13:10 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation Julian Andres Klode <jak@debian.org> - 2025-04-04 23:40 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation [and 1 more messages] Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-04 14:00 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation [and 1 more messages] Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2025-04-04 21:30 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation [and 1 more messages] Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-04-05 03:20 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation [and 1 more messages] Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2025-04-05 20:00 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation [and 1 more messages] Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-04-06 01:50 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation [and 1 more messages] Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-05 12:40 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation [and 1 more messages] Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-05 13:30 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation [and 1 more messages] Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-04-05 14:10 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2025-04-04 19:00 +0200
Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) Daniel Gröber <dxld@darkboxed.org> - 2025-04-05 12:50 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying Richard Lewis <richard.lewis.debian@googlemail.com> - 2025-04-05 14:00 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-05 21:50 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) Brian May <bam@debian.org> - 2025-04-06 00:00 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> - 2025-04-06 09:40 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-06 12:10 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-06 12:30 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> - 2025-04-06 13:30 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> - 2025-04-06 14:40 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2025-04-08 15:20 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-08 17:50 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) Steve McIntyre <93sam@debian.org> - 2025-04-10 02:50 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> - 2025-04-08 19:30 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-04-09 03:50 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> - 2025-04-09 14:00 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-09 16:20 +0200
Proactiveness of DPLing (was Re: Why Debian is dying) Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> - 2025-04-09 17:00 +0200
a Constitutional interpretation question (was: Why Debian is dying) "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 20:20 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org> - 2025-04-11 00:40 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-11 13:00 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-06 15:00 +0200
on continuing to wait Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-04-07 06:20 +0200
Re: on continuing to wait Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> - 2025-04-07 17:20 +0200
Re: on continuing to wait Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-07 18:10 +0200
Re: on continuing to wait Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> - 2025-04-07 22:40 +0200
Re: on continuing to wait Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-04-08 04:20 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org> - 2025-04-07 10:10 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2025-04-09 11:10 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 12:00 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2025-04-09 16:40 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> - 2025-04-09 17:00 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2025-04-08 16:50 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2025-04-06 13:10 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> - 2025-04-06 14:40 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-06 15:30 +0200
Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org> - 2025-04-07 22:30 +0200
Debian's position in the AI Era (Was: Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) "M. Zhou" <lumin@debian.org> - 2025-04-09 05:50 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-07 12:50 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-07 16:40 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-04-08 04:30 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-04-26 05:30 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-04-26 11:30 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2025-05-04 22:30 +0200
Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-05-05 14:30 +0200
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Richard Lewis <richard.lewis.debian@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-05 14:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why Debian is dying |
| Message-ID | <KyalQ-bh8t-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5116 |
Daniel Gröber <dxld@darkboxed.org> writes: > We all know Debian is [dying], right? > > [dying]: https://salsa.debian.org/rafael/debian-contrib-years this graph says it uses https://contributors.debian.org/source/ which says salsa.debian.org data was last updated 6 years ago?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-05 21:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) |
| Message-ID | <KyhGF-bmjC-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5116 |
Daniel Gröber writes ("Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation)"):
> [much that I agree with snipped]
Thanks.
> # FTP & tag2upload
>
> Ian. The project is bleeding and you're telling me ... we've had the
> bandaid ... in hand ... and could have applied it ... four years ago!?
To be clear, tag2upload is only a part of the solution to the problems
you identified. (And it's not the *only* proposed solution even in
its own space - but it's the only proposal that's part of a git-first
programme for Debian and also the only one that actually exists.)
But, yes.
> Ian, you have my full support in doing what is necessary to stop the
> bleeding and I'll be happy to volunteer to help with the dak hack job if
> that still makes sense with Simon's keyring idea on the table.
Thank you.
Yes, changes to dak are still needed, even assuming that we everyone
is happy with the new debian-tag2upload keyring that I've prepared a
git branch for and submitted in #1102125.
We still need at least a configuration change to cause dak to look at
that keyring as well as debian-keyring.gpg. IDK if dak's code
currently supports provision of more than one "Debian developer
keyring"; if not then that would have to be done too.
But anyway, this is trivial stuff.
> the five (at least, right?) different flavors of git packaging repo
> layouts
Five. lol. I surveyed them in 2019 or so, as background research work:
https://wiki.debian.org/GitPackagingSurvey
My personal opinion is that *at the very most* four of them ought to
exist in a git-first world. All the others are either not git based,
or pareto-worse than some other row in the table.
The four that are git-based *and* not pareto-worse than some other
approach are "unapplied", "merging", "git-debrebase" and
"git-debcherry".
The reason there are as many as four there is that we're maintaining a
downstream patch queue, and maintaining and updating and sharing a
such a downstream patch queue, with git, is an open research problem.
This hard problem is one that "the youth of today" largely won't have
had to deal with, since they have the upstream-first mindset as you
say. So there is some irreducible complexity here, but even so we
could and should do a lot better.
(I obviously approve of an upstream-first mindset, but it falls down
when upstream isn't working well.)
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian May <bam@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 00:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) |
| Message-ID | <KyjIt-bnIA-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5124 |
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > The reason there are as many as four there is that we're maintaining a > downstream patch queue, and maintaining and updating and sharing a > such a downstream patch queue, with git, is an open research problem. An added complexity is that sometimes upstream will add non-DFSG compliant files to their source, and as such we have to repackage the upstream orig tar.gz file to remove these files. Something that as a maintainer I have already hated. -- Brian May @ Debian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 09:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) |
| Message-ID | <KysLL-bu6O-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5128 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 05.04.25 23:37, Brian May wrote: > An added complexity is that sometimes upstream will add non-DFSG > compliant files to their source, and as such we have to repackage the > upstream orig tar.gz file to remove these files. Maybe it's (finally?) time to re-think most-if-not-all of that. As in, in that case our sources are whatever the contents of the Debian-tagged git tree consist of, period end of discussion. Then we either package that tree directly, or get with what the rest of the world does and don't package a tarball at all. A simple "git pull" from Salsa is perfectly cromulent after all. I'd wish that one of the DPL candidates' platform included a *way* more aggressive step in that direction than Andreas ended up doing last year, but oh well. -- -- regards -- -- Matthias Urlichs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 12:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) |
| Message-ID | <Kyv6V-bvWZ-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5128 |
Gianfranco Costamagna writes ("Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation)"):
> The months before a stable release pose a really high pressure on
> ftpmasters workload,
This is so frustrating! I have already explained why this is
completely irrelevant.
Yes, there is additional pressure on the NEW queue right now.
But NEW processing is (heroically) done entirely by Thorsten.
This dispute does not involve Thorsten.
So there is *zero impact* on NEW if we do this now.
> nobody wants to break dak when the freeze is approaching
The way we propose to install the key, in the Task Delegation,
is very very simple. It may not even need any code changes.
Now - when no other changes are being made to dak, and the actual
making of the release is still months away - is *exactly* the right
time to do this.
Let me put it like this:
I want to give a talk at Debconf in Brest about tag2upload.
I don't want to have to spend any of that talk explaining why it still
isn't deployed yet.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 12:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) |
| Message-ID | <Kyvqh-bw4z-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5128 |
Gianfranco Costamagna writes ("Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation)"):
> I know after a lot of development, watching the result of the job
> not being live due to missing work on somebody else hands is...
> sad...
It can be deployed, and we can start our beta, within *days*.
All it would take is for the DPL to publicly support our Task
Delegation proposal. We'd soon have a second volunteer (thanks
Daniel) and the key would be installed, simply and straightforwardly,
almost immediately.
We aren't waiting because ftpmaster haven't done the work agreed
in 2024, that only they want. That work is *not necessary*.
We are waiting because the DPL won't authorise an "NMU", despite
- the team involved being well-known as dysfunctional for many years
- the team's explicit position being that they don't want tag2upload
- the team having failed to deliver on its promises
- a complete lack of communication from that team
If that's not sufficient justification for DPL action then there can
surely be *no* circumstance in which a DPL will ever act.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 13:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) |
| Message-ID | <Kywmm-bwIf-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5137 |
On 17556 March 1977, Ian Jackson wrote: > We aren't waiting because ftpmaster haven't done the work agreed > in 2024, that only they want. That work is *not necessary*. Because you do not think it neccessary by force implies that everyone has to think so? You do not want it. The team that does the maintenance of the archive, does. > We are waiting because the DPL won't authorise an "NMU", despite > - the team involved being well-known as dysfunctional for many years > - the team's explicit position being that they don't want tag2upload > - the team having failed to deliver on its promises > - a complete lack of communication from that team The second point is a lie, and you know it. The last one is also not true. An environment in which one has to work with you is the worst possible environment. Yopur behaviour is nothing but harrassment, clean and simple. "They don't do what I want, in my timeframe, they are broken, they must be overruled" is the only thing you appear to know, always directly coming around with GRs and overrule. You and your behaviours effects are worse than those from many of the people we had to expell in the past. -- bye, Joerg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 14:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) |
| Message-ID | <Kyxs5-bxqJ-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5141 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 06.04.25 13:21, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > Because you do not think it neccessary by force implies that everyone > has to think so? Note that we can easily flip that statement. Because in effect, *just* because you think it's necessary everybody *does* have to think so, regardless of whether it's actually security theater without tangible benefit or not. I can't blame Jan for publicly reiterating that it's not. He did his part of what y'all agreed on despite his opinion that it's busywork. The ball's been in your court for a while now. > always directly coming around with GRs and overrule. You know that's not true either. Frankly, which other recourse does a DD have, in your opinion, if they think a team is obstructing what they see as a valuable contribution to Debian and the DPL (who arguably does have the authority to kick the whole FTP team out and appoint somebody else) doesn't want to put his foot down? -- -- regards -- -- Matthias Urlichs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-08 15:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) |
| Message-ID | <Kzh1T-c33Z-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5143 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Sun, Apr 06, 2025 at 02:10:27PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Frankly, which other recourse does a DD have, in your opinion, if they think
> a team is obstructing what they see as a valuable contribution to Debian and
> the DPL (who arguably does have the authority to kick the whole FTP team out
> and appoint somebody else) doesn't want to put his foot down?
https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution#item-6
The Technical Committee may:
Decide on any matter of technical policy.
Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap.
Make a decision when asked to do so.
Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
Offer advice.
They all seem to be way more collaborative to me, than - once again - immediatly
escalating this to -vote and threatening a GR.
*Also*, because some of us would like to focus on getting this trixie release
out.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄
“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right
of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings.
Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art
of words.” ― Ursula K. Le Guin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-08 17:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) |
| Message-ID | <Kzjn3-c4xu-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5157 |
Someone writes: > [the TC] seems] to be way more collaborative to me, than - once > again - immediatly escalating this to -vote and threatening a GR. Dear Community Team: I am getting very fed up of the repeated accusations, by multiple people, that we "immediately escalated" this to -vote. As we stated clearly in our thread starter message, and have now explicitly documented in detail, we tried very hard in private emails. We tried asking nicely. We tried negotiating. We tried the DPL. Of course the previous attempts were, yes, private emails. Escalating to an unstructured moan on a public list would not have been sensible. The draft GR proposal is our last resort, but *must* be public. So that is why the first *public* thing is the GR proposal. Therefore these allegations are a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Indeed they are made in disregard of the facts. That these kind of things are being said by multiple people is no excuse. Indeed, it makes the situation worse. People are entitled to disagree with us about timescales, but hyperbolic accusations like "immediately" are unacceptable. Please help. Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve McIntyre <93sam@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-10 02:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) |
| Message-ID | <KzOhb-coIg-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5159 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 04:46:44PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: >Someone writes: >> [the TC] seems] to be way more collaborative to me, than - once >> again - immediatly escalating this to -vote and threatening a GR. > >Dear Community Team: > >I am getting very fed up of the repeated accusations, by multiple >people, that we "immediately escalated" this to -vote. > >As we stated clearly in our thread starter message, and have now >explicitly documented in detail, we tried very hard in private emails. >We tried asking nicely. We tried negotiating. We tried the DPL. ACK. We've seen plenty of evidence of this - the "immediately" bit here is unwarranted. >Of course the previous attempts were, yes, private emails. >Escalating to an unstructured moan on a public list would not have >been sensible. The draft GR proposal is our last resort, but *must* >be public. So that is why the first *public* thing is the GR >proposal. > >Therefore these allegations are a gross misrepresentation of the >facts. Indeed they are made in disregard of the facts. > >That these kind of things are being said by multiple people is no >excuse. Indeed, it makes the situation worse. > >People are entitled to disagree with us about timescales, >but hyperbolic accusations like "immediately" are unacceptable. Nod. -- Steve McIntyre 93sam@debian.org Debian Community Team community@debian.org - https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Community/FAQ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-08 19:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) |
| Message-ID | <KzkVP-c5DS-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5157 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 08.04.25 15:09, Holger Levsen wrote: > The Technical Committee may: > [ list ] Sure. But exactly which of these items affords the power to fix the "ftpmaster doesn't implement what they said they'd do" problem? There was no technical disagreement, that was resolved last year. There was no decision to overrule except the unwillingness of the delegates to do some work, and you can't compel anybody to do work they don't want to do. (Not in Debian anway.) What you can do is to find somebody who wants to do the work, and then find somebody who has the power to delegate the right to implement it to them. If Ian's statement that the DPL was not willing to do so is true, and so far I have not read anything at odds with said assertion, then asking the TC would not have accomplished much if anything IMHO. -- -- regards -- -- Matthias Urlichs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-09 03:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why Debian is dying |
| Message-ID | <KzsJH-caBH-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5157 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hello, On Tue 08 Apr 2025 at 01:09pm GMT, Holger Levsen wrote: > The Technical Committee may: > > Decide on any matter of technical policy. > Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap. > Make a decision when asked to do so. > Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority). > Offer advice. > > > They all seem to be way more collaborative to me, than - once again - > immediatly escalating this to -vote and threatening a GR. This is not fair. Firstly, the TC cannot overrule delegates. This is well established. During my recently-completed TC term, there was no doubt within the committee that we could only deal with disputes among package maintainers/contributors, not anything involving DPL delegates. Secondly, "immediately escalating this to -vote" is not true, because we tried to resolve it in private first, extensively. And we tried to get the DPL to help. But the DPL didn't respond to a single message in the long private thread, despite being CCed on every message. > *Also*, because some of us would like to focus on getting this trixie > release out. I'm sorry that I didn't think of this. It's always seemed to me that political stuff can run in parallel to freezes (for example, we have been running the DPL election just fine), but I see now that others disagree. -- Sean Whitton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-09 14:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why Debian is dying |
| Message-ID | <KzCg1-cgYq-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5161 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 09.04.25 03:44, Sean Whitton wrote: > But the DPL didn't respond to a single message in the long private > thread, despite being CCed on every message. The question is, did you *ask* him to? Explicitly? 'Cause if not, sorry but that communication fail is on you, for the most part. IMHO. -- -- regards -- -- Matthias Urlichs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-09 16:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why Debian is dying |
| Message-ID | <KzErw-cixu-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5169 |
Matthias Urlichs writes ("Re: Why Debian is dying"):
> On 09.04.25 03:44, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > But the DPL didn't respond to a single message in the long private
> > thread, despite being CCed on every message.
>
> The question is, did you *ask* him to? Explicitly?
I looked thorugh my mail archives.
There is my message of the 15th of March in response to the
problematic email from an ftpmaster (that I have already mentioned).
I put leader@ as one of three addresses in the To field. In the mail
I stated, unambiguously and directly, my interpretation of the
situation. Even though my message doesn't request specific action of
the DPL, any reasonable DPL who read it would see that DPL
intervention was both wanted and needed. [1]
Perhaps it would have been better to demand, in terms, that the DPL
perform their Constitutional function, but it seemed (and still seems)
quite clear that the DPL was choosing not to intervene, rather than
that they believed their help wasn't required.
Ian.
[1] I think quoting from that mail would be quite unhelpful at this
stage. We seem like we may be making progress and I don't want to
unnecessarily dredge up the drama again.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-09 17:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Proactiveness of DPLing (was Re: Why Debian is dying) |
| Message-ID | <KzF4d-ciLU-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5170 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 09.04.25 16:18, Ian Jackson wrote: > [1] I think quoting from that mail would be quite unhelpful at this > stage. We seem like we may be making progress and I don't want to > unnecessarily dredge up the drama again. Fair enough, and I tend to agree FWIW. My interest, at this stage, is more along the lines of whether any candidate in this year's vote might somehow indicate that they'd take a more active role in similar situations. -- -- mit freundlichen Grüßen -- -- Matthias Urlichs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-09 20:20 +0200 |
| Subject | a Constitutional interpretation question (was: Why Debian is dying) |
| Message-ID | <KzBWF-cgPy-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5161 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
[CCing Ian on Debian Constitutional drafting question; moving to
-project; please direct any follow-ups there]
Hi Sean,
At 2025-04-09T09:44:31+0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Tue 08 Apr 2025 at 01:09pm GMT, Holger Levsen wrote:
>
> > The Technical Committee may:
> >
> > Decide on any matter of technical policy.
> > Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap.
> > Make a decision when asked to do so.
> > Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
> > Offer advice.
> >
> > They all seem to be way more collaborative to me, than - once again
> > - immediatly escalating this to -vote and threatening a GR.
>
> This is not fair.
>
> Firstly, the TC [Technical Committee --GBR] cannot overrule delegates.
> This is well established.
I was going to ask you to cite the relevant clause of the Constitution
here, and then thought, "I could be more useful if I looked it up myself
and shared it". ...but I'm having trouble finding that provision.
https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution
We have the introduction to §2.
DC> Each decision in the Project is made by one or more of the
DC> following:
DC>
DC> The Developers, by way of General Resolution or an election;
DC> The Project Leader;
DC> The Technical Committee and/or its Chair;
DC> The individual Developer working on a particular task;
DC> Delegates appointed by the Project Leader for specific tasks;
DC> The Project Secretary.
DC>
DC> Most of the remainder of this document will outline the powers of
DC> these bodies, their composition and appointment, and the procedure
DC> for their decision-making. The powers of a person or body may be
DC> subject to review and/or limitation by others; in this case the
DC> reviewing body or person's entry will state this. _In the list
DC> above, a person or body is usually listed before any people or
DC> bodies whose decisions they can overrule or who they (help) appoint
DC> - but not everyone listed earlier can overrule everyone listed
DC> later._
The last sentence is both apropos but also slanted/italicized and...I
have forgotten, if I ever knew, what the typeface change means, and the
document does not shed light on the issue. In the U.S. legal tradition,
we distinguish in appellate court opinions between "holdings" (binding
precedent) and "dicta" (non-binding rationales and explanations), and in
legislation between "resolutions" (which express the "sense" or
sentiments of the legislature, often as a signal to other branches of
government, to foreign governments, or to the private sector) and
"bills" (which generally construct, amend, or repeal statutory law).
But it's fairly well known that Ian is not an American; the U.K. common
law tradition he's likely more familiar with and the related U.S. one
have been diverging roughly since Blackstone (1769).[1]
Later, we have in Article 6 establishing the Technical Committee:
[the TC can:]
DC> § 6.1.4 Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
DC>
DC> The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular
DC> technical course of action even if the Developer does not wish to;
DC> this requires a 3:1 majority. For example, the Committee may
DC> determine that a complaint made by the submitter of a bug is
DC> justified and that the submitter's proposed solution should be
DC> implemented.
Here, if italics were to be used for non-binding "dicta", I'd expect the
second sentence to be slanted/italicized, but it is not.
So, to me, the TC's view of the limitation on its power in this respect
is anything but clear. It may be a working assumption of the team as
presently embodied, and that's fine--teams generally get to organize
and devise procedures for themselves in whatever ways they find
expedient, barring conflicts with the Constitution, the DPL, or the
Developers by way of GR--but if that's the case it's not necessarily
"well established" to the rest of the membership or to the public.
Looking only at the Constitution itself, I see the following.
1. "a person or body is usually listed before any people or bodies
whose decisions they can overrule or who they (help) appoint - but
not everyone listed earlier can overrule everyone listed later."
2. The DPL is placed _above_ the TC in the overruling precedence chart.
3. The DPL's delegates are generally understood to be capable of
exercising any power the DPL can, pursuant to the DPL's explicit,
specific delegation of same. But...
4. The TC is placed _above_ the DPL's delegates in the overruling
precedence chart.
To me, from a Constitutional perspective, then, your claim that
> the TC cannot overrule delegates.
...does not appear to be well-founded. Again, it's fine if the TC has
adopted, for comity or any other reason, a working principle that it
will not overrule delegates, but that seems to be a self-imposed
restriction, and should be communicated to the Developers as such.
> During my recently-completed TC term, there was no doubt within the
> committee that we could only deal with disputes among package
> maintainers/contributors, not anything involving DPL delegates.
"Could" or "would"? This internally imposed constraint may have served
the TC and even the entire Project well in the past, and possibly in the
future, but if it's mandated by the Constitution, I'm not seeing it.
It's important when executing a constitutional office to clearly
distinguish between the powers granted to and prohibitions imposed on
you by the governing document on the one hand, and the working practices
and standard operating procedures you have on the other.
Both arrogation of power prohibited to your office and neglect of power
entrusted to it erode the efficacy of the Constitution as a governing
document. In plain language, our Constitution promises everyone one
thing but we proceed to do another.
If I'm wrong about this (and have not simply missed a usage of the word
"overrule", which I _did_ mechanically search for), then under your
interpretation it is as if Constitution §2 said:
FakeDC> Each decision in the Project is made by one or more of the
FakeDC> following:
FakeDC>
FakeDC> The Developers, by way of General Resolution or an election;
FakeDC> The Project Leader;
FakeDC> Delegates appointed by the Project Leader for specific tasks;
FakeDC> The Technical Committee and/or its Chair;
FakeDC> The individual Developer working on a particular task;
FakeDC> The Project Secretary.
...but it does not.
This difference, I suggest, _must_ be meaningful.
If someone cannot validly correct my interpretation of the Constitution,
I reckon I'll need to follow-up with the TC.
Recalling the real Constitution's list:
DC> The Developers, by way of General Resolution or an election;
DC> The Project Leader;
DC> The Technical Committee and/or its Chair;
DC> The individual Developer working on a particular task;
DC> Delegates appointed by the Project Leader for specific tasks;
DC> The Project Secretary.
I'd need to (1) ask the TC to prominently document their policy of
non-override of Delegates--and presumably the Project Secretary[2]--
(also recall that the provision of overriding an individual Developer is
explicitly covered by §6.1.4) and (2) ask them to weigh the possibility
of proposing a GR to amend the Constitution to reflect the reduced level
of authority they're willing to exercise.
But before I'd proceed with (2), I'd want to hear from Ian Jackson, as
primary drafter of the Constitution, what he recalls of his reasoning
and intentions behind the ordering of the foregoing list, and whether
he's found any cause to reconsider that ordering in the years since.
And also what the use of italics means.
Regards,
Branden
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Laws_of_England
[2] I initially thought, "when and why would the TC _ever_ override the
_Project Secretary_?!", as if the possibility were absurd. But then
I remembered that the Project Secretary (PS) is tasked with drafting
the final content of ballot options and the determination of which,
if any, supermajority requirements attach to each one.
For example, the question of whether a ballot option entails a
supermajority requirement sometimes arises, and it can be a question
of interpretation whether the text of a ballot option supersedes a
provision of a "Foundation Document" (like the DFSG) and therefore
demands a 3:1 supermajority to pass. This is not a theoretical
matter. I recall that when Manoj Srivastava served as Project
Secretary, it came up in real life. (Yes, we argued about it.)
The following sequence of events is therefore conceivable: (1) a
Debian Developer, specifically a package maintainer ("Maintainer"),
elects to put some arguably non-DFSG-free material into a package
targeted at "main". (2) Others Developers contest Maintainer's
decision and submit a grievance to the TC. (3) The members of the
TC vote by a 3:1 supermajority (§6.1.4) to override the Maintainer.
(4) The Developers propose a GR to override the TC, and acquire
sufficient seconds for the GR to proceed to ballot. (5) The PS must
then decide whether this proposal requires a 2:1 majority to
"override any decision authorised by the powers of the Technical
Committee" (§4.1.4) or a 3:1 majority to override the provisions of
a "Foundation Document" (§4.1.5.3). The DFSG is a Foundation
Document (id.) If the PS selects the 2:1 supermajority requirement
because the PS concurs with the Maintainer that the contested
material is not non-DFSG-free, then, as I read the Constitution, the
TC can in fact override this decision by the PS and direct the PS to
enforce the higher supermajority requirement of 3:1.
May it never come to pass--y'all thought the systemd thing was bad...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 00:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why Debian is dying |
| Message-ID | <KA8IW-cBUu-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5161 |
Le Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 09:44:31AM +0800, Sean Whitton a écrit : > Hello, > > On Tue 08 Apr 2025 at 01:09pm GMT, Holger Levsen wrote: > > > The Technical Committee may: > > > > Decide on any matter of technical policy. > > Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap. > > Make a decision when asked to do so. > > Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority). > > Offer advice. > > > > > > They all seem to be way more collaborative to me, than - once again - > > immediatly escalating this to -vote and threatening a GR. > > This is not fair. > > Firstly, the TC cannot overrule delegates. This is well established. > During my recently-completed TC term, there was no doubt within the > committee that we could only deal with disputes among package > maintainers/contributors, not anything involving DPL delegates. Without contesting this point, I suggest that the TC could still provide a non-binding neutral opinion on a technical issue when requested. At least this could alleviate the need for the DPL to have to decide the validity technical issue themself. However that requires that no party is a member of the TC at the time. I write that as someone which is very critical of the TC concept in general. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballombe@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 13:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why Debian is dying |
| Message-ID | <KAkh3-cJeF-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5180 |
Bill Allombert writes ("Re: Why Debian is dying"):
> Le Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 09:44:31AM +0800, Sean Whitton a écrit :
> > Firstly, the TC cannot overrule delegates. [...]
>
> Without contesting this point, I suggest that the TC could still provide
> a non-binding neutral opinion on a technical issue when requested.
Yes, indeed. That's already there in the Consitution - 6.1(3).
I think the TC would expect such a request to come from someone with
the decision over the question. So in the tag2upload case, the ftp
team or the DPL. So this does depend on the DPL being prepared to do
more than just mediate.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 15:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation) |
| Message-ID | <KyxLs-bxz0-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #5141 |
Joerg Jaspert writes ("Re: Why Debian is dying (Was: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation)"):
> > We are waiting because the DPL won't authorise an "NMU", despite
> > - the team involved being well-known as dysfunctional for many years
> > - the team's explicit position being that they don't want tag2upload
> > - the team having failed to deliver on its promises
> > - a complete lack of communication from that team
>
> The second point is a lie, and you know it. [...]
Since I have been accused of lying, I guess I need to provide
receipts.
ftpmaster's firm response in 2019, explained at length, was no. [0]
frpmaster's first response in 2024 was no [1], and only a 1000-message
thread and a formal GR proposal got us to the compromise agreement. [2]
frpmaster's first response to our request for key installation, was
an obnoxious mail [3] followed by "no" [4] (private mails, sorry).
Each time, the starting point is "no" and only intense negotiation has
(sometimes) produced anything other than "no".
(By tag2upload we mean the system that Sean and I designed, not some
in our view far inferior counterproposal from ftpmaster; see [5])
Ian.
[0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/08/msg00521.html
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2024/06/msg00008.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2024/07/msg00024.html
[3] <b34209005ae4b22adcf1c1fc75db9fc57cf5e788.camel@debian.org>
[4] <874izuc52f.fsf@ganneff.de>
[5] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2024/06/msg00204.html
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.vote
csiph-web