Discussion:
question for all candidates
(too old to reply)
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt
2006-02-27 11:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Heya,

Two years ago, Branden Robinson talked about the issue of some tasks in
the project that are neither delegated by the Project leader nor covered
by the Constitution directly. [1] He referenced his platform from 2004
last year (when he was elected), but it seems that nothing has happened
since then.

So, to the question:
Should we amend our constitution to reflect how Debian is structured in
reality, or should the people doing these tasks now be recognized as
delegates of the DPL? What will you do to clarify the situation?

Marc

Footnotes:
[1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/platforms/branden#s2p4
--
BOFH #72:
Satan did it
Ian Jackson
2006-02-27 14:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt
Should we amend our constitution to reflect how Debian is structured in
reality, or should the people doing these tasks now be recognized as
delegates of the DPL? What will you do to clarify the situation?
I'm not a candidate, but:

There seems to be no question here at all. The delegate status was
always intended to cover (for example) the ftp administrators. The
practical effect of this is that the Leader can fire (say) the release
manager.

I have heard some people claim that this is not the case and that
somehow some of the teams like the release and ftp teams are not
answerable to anyone. This is patent nonsense.

Of course, the Leader should not needlessly annoy any of the delegate
teams. For example, Branden said:
`[the previous] project leader doesn't feel that the delegation
process in our Constitution is the way Debian really works. He
characterized a refusal to make delegates of the archive
administrators, system administrators, and so forth as "pragmatic".'

I think the right way to interpret this is to see that many of the
people who do not agree about the constitutional position are doing a
good job anyway, and there is no need to rub their noses in it or
force them to lose a political battle.

Branden seemed to be suggesting that he would formally issue a
statement saying that certain people were delegates. I think that
would have been a mistake.

The Leader should leave the situation in limbo unless they intend to
fire the current incumbents and have volunteers to replace them. And
of course they should only do that if the incumbents need replacing,
which I don't think is currently the case with any of the teams I'm
aware of.

Ian.
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
2006-02-28 18:29:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt
Should we amend our constitution to reflect how Debian is structured in
reality, or should the people doing these tasks now be recognised as
delegates of the DPL? What will you do to clarify the situation?
We should ensure that the document describing the organisational layout
of the project[1] is accurate. I can come into Ian Jackson's reply[2],
and I don't feel it is really needed to tackle this issue, as long as
the differences either way are mostly academic. I intend to focus on
real issues instead. When the difference is relevant, I will focus on
achieving what I want to achieve. As I wrote in my platform:

| [Debian] excels where people work together directly on technical
| problems they like to contribute to. It is the nature of the Debian
| project, and in the ideal situation, the DPL should not be involved at
| all.

What remains on the plate from the current term, is working with some of
those teams to get some bottlenecks and other issues resolved, but I do
not expect to need to (or that it would be effective to) resort to
powers only available for dealing with delegated teams, nor do I
currently consider any of the issues pressing enough to promise
working on them in my platform -- I will work on some of them, and
direct more attention when needed, but there are only so many hours in a
year, and I want to focus my DPL-ship.

--Jeroen

[1] http://www.debian.org/intro/organization
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00679.html
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
***@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Bill Allombert
2006-02-28 19:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt
Heya,
Two years ago, Branden Robinson talked about the issue of some tasks in
the project that are neither delegated by the Project leader nor covered
by the Constitution directly. [1] He referenced his platform from 2004
last year (when he was elected), but it seems that nothing has happened
since then.
Should we amend our constitution to reflect how Debian is structured in
reality, or should the people doing these tasks now be recognized as
delegates of the DPL? What will you do to clarify the situation?
Thanks for your question.

The constitution does not require all task to be delegated. By my reading
the constitution only require the DAM to be a Delegate, viz.

8. The Project Leader's Delegates

8.1. Powers

The Project Leader's Delegates:
1. have powers delegated to them by the Project Leader;
2. may make certain decisions which the Leader may not make directly,
including approving or expelling Developers or designating people
as Developers who do not maintain packages. This is to avoid
concentration of power, particularly over membership as a
Developer, in the hands of the Project Leader.

I don't plan to change the current situation in that matter. If the
developers involved ask themself to become Delegates, I will certainly
consider it, but I am not sure it make any practical differences.

I think it is more useful and probably less confrontational to work
with them to enable them to perform their task smoothly and
transparently than arguing on technical constitutional points.

Cheers,
--
Bill. <***@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here.
Steve McIntyre
2006-03-01 00:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt
Heya,
Two years ago, Branden Robinson talked about the issue of some tasks
in the project that are neither delegated by the Project leader nor
covered by the Constitution directly. [1] He referenced his platform
from 2004 last year (when he was elected), but it seems that nothing
has happened since then.
Should we amend our constitution to reflect how Debian is structured
in reality, or should the people doing these tasks now be recognized
as delegates of the DPL? What will you do to clarify the situation?
It's not clear that everybody doing the core jobs in Debian was ever
explicitly delegated by a DPL, but in my opinion that doesn't really
matter. This is for a couple of reasons:

1. As I see it, the constitution does not require that all roles
need be delegated. The way that most of Debian has always worked
is that jobs are done by the people with the skills and (more
importantly) the desire to do them.

2. The people doing core tasks are still answerable to the rest of
the project, regardless of whether they may have been delegated
or not.

Making an issue of "delegation" would seem to just be a way of causing
aggravation for no good reason. If people believe there is a reason,
then that would be the time to have open and honest discussion on the
subject.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. ***@einval.com
"You can't barbecue lettuce!" -- Ellie Crane
Andreas Schuldei
2006-03-05 21:52:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt
Two years ago, Branden Robinson talked about the issue of some tasks in
the project that are neither delegated by the Project leader nor covered
by the Constitution directly. [1] He referenced his platform from 2004
last year (when he was elected), but it seems that nothing has happened
since then.
Should we amend our constitution to reflect how Debian is structured in
reality, or should the people doing these tasks now be recognized as
delegates of the DPL? What will you do to clarify the situation?
I think the constitution is quite clear on what the DPL is allowed to
do and does not need amendment in this regard.

To me it does not make sense to delegate just for the sake of it. That
would feel bureaucratic to me and the project has already enough of
that. I would not go and delegate a d-i team, for example, since it
just works well anyway.

When important teams seem to be disfunctional or have a hard time to
find a structure that scales into the future I would however use my
powers of delegation to restructure the team from the outside. I would
only do that after I worked with the team to help it overcome it's
issues itself, however.

I followed both Martin Michelmayr's effords during his terms and
spend a lot of time in our DPL-team with some teams and would
like to continue this work as DPL to conclude it.
Matthew Garrett
2006-03-07 20:09:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Schuldei
When important teams seem to be disfunctional or have a hard time to
find a structure that scales into the future I would however use my
powers of delegation to restructure the team from the outside. I would
only do that after I worked with the team to help it overcome it's
issues itself, however.
If you were DPL right now, which teams would you consider making formal
delegates regardless of their wishes?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-***@srcf.ucam.org
Andreas Schuldei
2006-03-08 14:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Garrett
Post by Andreas Schuldei
When important teams seem to be disfunctional or have a hard time to
find a structure that scales into the future I would however use my
powers of delegation to restructure the team from the outside. I would
only do that after I worked with the team to help it overcome it's
issues itself, however.
If you were DPL right now, which teams would you consider making formal
delegates regardless of their wishes?
It would depend on weather I had good additional people that
could make (in my oppinion) a difference in team dynamics and
performance.

Important teams I would watch in order of priority:
- Stable security
There was a security blackout during the summer of 2005, with
repercussions in the press and public oppinion, hurting the
project.
Since then Moritz was added as a full member to the stable
security team. Should the transition to common tracking tools,
a devision between embargoed/unembargoed (vs stable/testing)
and a more transparent and open work environment continue as it
seems to present I dont see any need for any outside
intervention.
Given the high profile of Debian's security work I will follow
the unfolding development closely, though.

- Keyring Mainainance
The only person working on this is very busy. More redundancy
and a more user-driven attitude could help a lot. I have been
talking to the keyring maintainer on several occasions last year
but we have not yet found a way or a candiate to help.
Ideas? Nominations?

- Debian-System-Administrators
The working climate in the team is lacking and communication
internally and externaly can be improved. Some members are
extremly busy. I would like the team to become able to add new
manpower itself. I talked with three of the four admins on the
phone numerous times during last term and would like to see
change happening from the inside, first. Lacking that I would
not wait much longer before intervening from the outside. I am
certain that my election as DPL would help in that regard, as I
was told before that since I was not DPL myself, I had no
authority and could not help.

- FTP-Masters
Transparency has improved and new people have been added.
FTP-Masters have problems interacting with some other high
profile, active developers, though.

- Press
Debian could do with an active, outgoing press department. I
look for people with an outgoing personality, time, excellent
english and experience with press. Packaging skills are less
important. I would like local sub-departments with tight
coordination with the "headquarter".
Just very recently Alexander Schmehl was added to ***@d.o.
That is a good step forward and we will follow closely, as with
the security team.
Anthony Towns
2006-03-09 07:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Schuldei
- Keyring Mainainance
The only person working on this is very busy. More redundancy
and a more user-driven attitude could help a lot. I have been
talking to the keyring maintainer on several occasions last year
but we have not yet found a way or a candiate to help.
Ideas? Nominations?
So, since I have a pretty good relationship with James, I'm aware of
three instances of issues with key updates after revocations in the past
few months.

The first was Chip Salzenburg's request for a key update, subsequent
flaming over lack of responsiveness, and eventual resignation. AIUI,
Chip happened to make the request when James was particularly busy,
including increasingly demanding requests each day following that for a
week, and pestering James on work channels (#ubuntu-devel). Chip's key
updates were included in the next keyring update, unfortunately after that
had escalated into a flamewar on -devel, and Chip's resignation. The DPL
sent a request through to James about how that was handled, which James
responded to in some detail. To the best of my knowledge there was no
further followup from the DPL or the DPL team.

The second key replacement I'm familiar with was that of Simon Horms,
who (not long after Chip's resignation) /msg'ed me asking if I had any
idea if the replacement request he'd sent a couple of days earlier had
been received; I said that wasn't something I could check, and suggested
he /msg elmo with a polite request to see it had been received, since
keyring-maint tends to get buried under spam. I didn't hear anything
since, and ttbomk Horms was able to upload again pretty quickly.

The third was Andres Salomon; I prodded him about some random bug for
some random testing transition, and he replied that he couldn't do much
about it without his key getting replaced -- which he'd tried to get
done months ago. I spoke to James to see what was going on, he checked
his mailbox and found absolutely nothing about it. When I passed this
on to Andres, it turned out the mail requesting the update hadn't been
sent in the first place. That was rectified, and his key was updated
within a week or so.

In the mail to the DPL I mentioned above, James outlined three fairly
significant technical changes that could be implemented to make the
job easier, and could be done by anyone, without requiring any special
priveleges; and also noted why he doesn't believe it's technically
feasible to have the keyring maintained by multiple people, and how that
could be fixed.

So, I don't see how you can say how you "have not found a way to
help", and in all the cases I've seen, I don't think there's been any
significant problem in the way updates have been handled, at least on
the keyring-maint's behalf.
Post by Andreas Schuldei
- FTP-Masters
Transparency has improved and new people have been added.
FTP-Masters have problems interacting with some other high
profile, active developers, though.
We chatted about this on IRC at the beginning of October, to wit:

22:50 <aj> (i note you didn't come up with any specific problems in how
ftpmaster's operating)
22:51 <stockholm> do you want to know?
22:51 <aj> why wouldn't i?
22:51 <aj> i asked, didn't i?
22:51 <stockholm> because you would perceive it as nagging.
22:51 <aj> huh?
22:52 <stockholm> lol
22:52 <stockholm> not???
22:52 <stockholm> i can send it in a mail if you want to
22:52 <stockholm> must run now.
22:52 <aj> the only thing i can think that would be nagging is if you're going
to say "stable updates taking a while", which doesn't strike me as
particularly exciting
22:53 <stockholm> sure, i can do that, then (c:

You didn't /msg me again until December, on a largely unrelated matter;
and never sent any email of that nature. Would you care to detail why
not, or what you or the DPL team were working on instead of communicating
your concerns to us?

In any event, it's very difficult to make improvements when people won't
tell you what the problems they see are, or don't find any improvement
to ever be good enough.

(The r1 update to sarge was delayed for a couple of reasons iirc; one
that I've forgotten, the other was due to the delay in the finalisation
of some fairly critical security updates for the kernel. The update
happened a couple of days after they were prepared, in spite of some
random problems coincidently caused by Horms' key replacement)

Cheers,
aj
Don Armstrong
2006-03-09 09:35:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Towns
In the mail to the DPL I mentioned above, James outlined three
fairly significant technical changes that could be implemented to
make the job easier, and could be done by anyone, without requiring
any special priveleges; and also noted why he doesn't believe it's
technically feasible to have the keyring maintained by multiple
people, and how that could be fixed.
Could this mail (or the practical upshot of it) be made public?

[I've personally been interested in developing something along these
lines to deal with controlling the public keyrings that I seem to have
strewn througout mulitple machines, and it seems reasonable to attack
both issues at once, assuming I ever get time to do this.]


Don Armstrong
--
"Ban cryptography! Yes. Let's also ban pencils, pens and paper, since
criminals can use them to draw plans of the joint they are casing or
even, god forbid, create one time pads to pass uncrackable codes to
each other. Ban open spaces since criminals could use them to converse
with each other out of earshot of the police. Let's ban flags since
they could be used to pass secret messages in semaphore. In fact let's
just ban all forms of verbal and non-verbal communication -- let's see
those criminals make plans now!"

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Anthony Towns
2006-03-09 13:25:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Armstrong
Post by Anthony Towns
In the mail to the DPL I mentioned above, James outlined three
fairly significant technical changes that could be implemented to
make the job easier, and could be done by anyone, without requiring
any special priveleges; and also noted why he doesn't believe it's
technically feasible to have the keyring maintained by multiple
people, and how that could be fixed.
Could this mail (or the practical upshot of it) be made public?
I'll leaving posting the mail itself to Branden or James if they chose,
since I only had a copy to comment on any wording that wasn't clear.
Post by Don Armstrong
What would these three things be? I might be interested in tackling
some of them.
So first one was the spam problem, keyring-maint is a well-known address,
and mails that are meant to go to it could be in all sorts of weird
formats. There's already magic debian.org handling that'll drop stuff
without a pseudo-header in the mail (for ***@bugs), or without
a specific tag in the subject which should mostly solve the problem,
which mostly requires working out some tags/headers and making sure all
the appropriate documentation is updated.

The second was to get rt setup to, uh, track requests -- it's waiting
on the first thing (since rt sends auto-replies, and auto-replies to
spam is bad, mmmkay), and possibly also lacks a debian.org machine that can
be its host.

The third thing was to develop some new scripts to manage
debian-keyring.gpg in a more componentised manner -- rather than
one huge blob, have many small files that are independently auditable
(this is the key for "***@debian.org", it's authorised because it came
via ***@debian.org after blah lost their key in a tragic accident
involving a watermelon, it's signed by foo and bar...). The scripts
to manage all this have to be simple, obviously correct and secure,
and also fast enough to be usable.

Apparently there's been some mention of this on -private; I'm not
sure when.

Cheers,
aj
Kalle Kivimaa
2006-03-09 13:47:35 UTC
Permalink
[Moving this to -devel, please reply only there, this is not really
voting related stuff. We are talking about things to improve keyring
maintenance, for those not reading -vote.]
Post by Anthony Towns
So first one was the spam problem, keyring-maint is a well-known address,
and mails that are meant to go to it could be in all sorts of weird
formats. There's already magic debian.org handling that'll drop stuff
a specific tag in the subject which should mostly solve the problem,
which mostly requires working out some tags/headers and making sure all
the appropriate documentation is updated.
Could these mails be required to have a valid GPG signature (either
for a key in a public keyserver or a DD key)? This would eliminate the
spam problem (almost) entirely.
Post by Anthony Towns
The third thing was to develop some new scripts to manage
debian-keyring.gpg in a more componentised manner -- rather than
one huge blob, have many small files that are independently auditable
involving a watermelon, it's signed by foo and bar...). The scripts
to manage all this have to be simple, obviously correct and secure,
and also fast enough to be usable.
I think I could at least try to tackle this, as this doesn't need
anything special. If somebody else is already working on this, I would
appreciate a heads-up :)
Post by Anthony Towns
Apparently there's been some mention of this on -private; I'm not
sure when.
I recall some discussion, yes.
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer *
Nathanael Nerode
2006-03-10 19:18:46 UTC
Permalink
If you don't want to read the rant, skip to the bottom where I volunteer
to help....
Post by Anthony Towns
In the mail to the DPL I mentioned above, James outlined three fairly
significant technical changes that could be implemented to make the
job easier, and could be done by anyone, without requiring any special
priveleges;
Why on EARTH didn't he outline these needed changes to *debian-devel*,
or put them on the Debian wiki, or in some other way let *everyone* know
what needed to be done? Nobody's going to volunteer to do them if
nobody knows *what they are*. On the other hand, if he publicized what
he needed, I promise he'd get volunteers writing code almost
immediately.

*This* is what's wrong with James's communication skills. Apparently
it's also a problem with the *DPL*, who could equally well have
publicized the same needed changes.

---

Anyway, thank you for finally describing the issues
(in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/03/msg00275.html).

If I could be pointed to the existing scripts for managing debian-keyring.gpg,
I can start work on making them componentised, simple, obviously correct and
secure, and fast. That sort of work is what I'm especially good at. I could
start an alioth project for "keyring-manangement-scripts" if anyone else is
interested in working on this.

Hmm, this is going off topic for -vote.... Replies to -devel please.
--
Nathanael Nerode <***@twcny.rr.com>

Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Kalle Kivimaa
2006-03-09 09:47:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Towns
In the mail to the DPL I mentioned above, James outlined three fairly
significant technical changes that could be implemented to make the
job easier, and could be done by anyone, without requiring any special
priveleges;
What would these three things be? I might be interested in tackling
some of them.
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer *
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
2006-03-10 17:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Towns
The first was Chip Salzenburg's request for a key update, subsequent
flaming over lack of responsiveness, and eventual resignation. AIUI,
Chip happened to make the request when James was particularly busy,
including increasingly demanding requests each day following that for a
week, and pestering James on work channels (#ubuntu-devel). Chip's key
updates were included in the next keyring update, unfortunately after that
had escalated into a flamewar on -devel, and Chip's resignation. The DPL
sent a request through to James about how that was handled, which James
responded to in some detail. To the best of my knowledge there was no
further followup from the DPL or the DPL team.
Indeed, Chip also asked the DPL (team) about this repeatedly, and in my
humble opinion, a bit impatiently, requesting response times
disproportional to the issue at hand -- the key was presumed compromised
since at least June (when the story hit slashdot), but yet keyring-maint
was to the best of my knowledge contacted no earlier than October to get
a replacement key in.

I was asked by Branden to look into this, but before I actually came
around to really contact James Troup, after verifying proper procedures
were followed in the first place, Chip already resigned. Because I
didn't at that time and don't at present perceive any problem with
keyring-maint, I didn't want to bother James at all w.r.t. this
question. After all, as far as I can briefly see, the last >2 week gap
between keyring updates was a year ago, no updates between 25 Feb and 18
Mar 2005. Such track record is actually quite impressive. Kudos, James!

--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
***@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Martin Schulze
2006-03-09 09:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Post by Matthew Garrett
Post by Andreas Schuldei
When important teams seem to be disfunctional or have a hard time to
find a structure that scales into the future I would however use my
powers of delegation to restructure the team from the outside. I would
only do that after I worked with the team to help it overcome it's
issues itself, however.
If you were DPL right now, which teams would you consider making formal
delegates regardless of their wishes?
It would depend on weather I had good additional people that
could make (in my oppinion) a difference in team dynamics and
performance.
- Stable security
There was a security blackout during the summer of 2005, with
repercussions in the press and public oppinion, hurting the
project.
Err... you know that this was caused by disfunctional infrastructure
not maintained by the security team, right?
Post by Andreas Schuldei
- Press
Debian could do with an active, outgoing press department. I
look for people with an outgoing personality, time, excellent
english and experience with press. Packaging skills are less
important. I would like local sub-departments with tight
coordination with the "headquarter".
That is a good step forward and we will follow closely, as with
the security team.
Good input for the press team is always good - yet only very seldom
provided.

Regards,

Joey
--
MIME - broken solution for a broken design. -- Ralf Baechle
Jutta Wrage
2006-03-09 20:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Schuldei
- Stable security
There was a security blackout during the summer of 2005, with
repercussions in the press and public oppinion, hurting the
project.
Shouldn't it be more: Looking that there will be no new release
without security support for it up and running? Security support for
Sarge was not the only problem, when Sarge was released...

greetings

Jutta

- --
http://www.witch.westfalen.de
http://witch.muensterland.org
Matthew Garrett
2006-03-09 20:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Post by Matthew Garrett
If you were DPL right now, which teams would you consider making formal
delegates regardless of their wishes?
It would depend on weather I had good additional people that
could make (in my oppinion) a difference in team dynamics and
performance.
Last November, you and the DPL team wanted to propose a GR that would
have forcibly made everyone in a position of authority a formal
delegate, and stated that you had replacements ready if they were
unwilling to comply.

1) You now appear less willing to do so. What has changed?

2) At the time you said that you had new ftp-masters and a new security
team ready to replace the existing ones. Does this mean that you already
have good additional people that could (in your opinion) make a
difference in team dynamics and performance?

3) You have previously claimed that new people were formally delegated
to the security team during the past year. This was never announced on
debian-devel-announce, and these delegations were never posted on
http://www.debian.org/intro/organization . If you were unable to
successfully add people to teams then, why do you believe you would be
able to do so during your time as DPL?

4) You were planning to propose a GR that would have made the
ftp-masters formal delegates. However, at the time you had not actually
raised this with the ftp-masters. How does this fit with your desire for
the project to be more open and communicative?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-***@srcf.ucam.org
Andreas Schuldei
2006-03-10 09:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Garrett
Last November, you and the DPL team wanted to propose a GR that would
have forcibly made everyone in a position of authority a formal
delegate, and stated that you had replacements ready if they were
unwilling to comply.
The GR was intended to clarify a situation that arose precisely
because Branden had talked with some ftp-masters. (So your
question 4) is not really valid.) Branden got told that he could
not delegate those old core teams since they pre-dated the
constituion and for that reason the constitution was not really
applicable to them. (This is of cause incorrect: the constitution
was ratified in a GR for the whole project. Other positions like
the DPL predate the constitution, too, and still they are very
much subject to it.)
Post by Matthew Garrett
1) You now appear less willing to do so. What has changed?
The GR was intendet to clarify that point.
However, in a small oppinion poll I found that this apparently
was already clear to everyone in the project. A GR would not have
added much value but instead created unnecessary unrest and work
Post by Matthew Garrett
2) At the time you said that you had new ftp-masters and a new security
team ready to replace the existing ones. Does this mean that you already
have good additional people that could (in your opinion) make a
difference in team dynamics and performance?
At that time I emphazised several times that replacing the teams
was only the very last, desperate option, which we were trying to
avoid but for completeness sake had considered along with a
variety of less drastical ones.

I told you that we were trying to mediate, encourage
reconciliation, deescalate by getting different people to talk to
them, change the social setting to give them incentive to change,
etc.

The security team (which is in the process of restructuring
itself successfully) is actually a good example of how the adding
of a new member can help in several ways. Moritz
- does a lot of work, even on old stable software
- is open to new ways of working team oriented
- has time and dedication and ambition to improve the situation
- is willing to try to compensate for joey's "mail only" tracking
by proxing into the issue tracking tools
- works tighly together with the much bigger and better
testing-security team and channels their work into the stable
team, even

I did not go after FTP-Master either. I was more worried about
DSA, which suffers badly under the social jam that you currrently
can witness and is paralysed by it. My current greatest hope is
that the good example of the security team can inspire it to
reform itself in a similar way. Actually the candiate that I
would suggest is also their prefered choice, they just cant get
to talk about it. I gave you his name, even.
Post by Matthew Garrett
3) You have previously claimed that new people were formally delegated
to the security team during the past year. This was never announced on
debian-devel-announce, and these delegations were never posted on
http://www.debian.org/intro/organization . If you were unable to
successfully add people to teams then, why do you believe you would be
able to do so during your time as DPL?
Yes. We had asked Joey to give some people access and priviliges
so that they could release kernel DSAs themselfs, quickly.
In the current framework this is not necessary any more for the
reasons given above.

My goal (now, as then) is to convince teams to take up new members
themselfs, as the security team did in the end. I think I am in
an excellent position to do so since I already spend a lot of
time talking to all involved parties and we covered a lot of
ground.

During this conversation you yourself pointed out a major "flaw"
of my position at that time: I was not the DPL. This time around
I would be DPL when continuing to talk with these people, unlike
then, when I was only a DPL-team member. With the body of
developers empowering me to lead these negotiations these teams
would know that the Debian Community was very much interested in
the reform of their teams for the better and would most likey
consider it very seriously.
Post by Matthew Garrett
4) You were planning to propose a GR that would have made the
ftp-masters formal delegates. However, at the time you had not actually
raised this with the ftp-masters. How does this fit with your desire for
the project to be more open and communicative?
Please see above. There had been talks and mails, even
face-to-face ones. People were informed of the intention to
delegate. Regarding not coming out with the GR out front,
irritating and potentially threatening them, was totally
intented. As written above I was interested to hear what my
fellow DDs thought and get feedback on it. The people were not
informed of the GR that never came to pass since they are overly
touchy and feel threatend quickly. Until you told them, that is.
(c:
Matthew Garrett
2006-03-10 13:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Post by Matthew Garrett
1) You now appear less willing to do so. What has changed?
The GR was intendet to clarify that point.
However, in a small oppinion poll I found that this apparently
was already clear to everyone in the project. A GR would not have
added much value but instead created unnecessary unrest and work
No, that doesn't make sense. Phrasing it like that makes it sound like
the GR was intended to have no effect, but at the time you were willing
to discuss the fact that it may be necessary to replace the existing
ftp-masters and security team. In fact, you'd already planned for that.
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Post by Matthew Garrett
2) At the time you said that you had new ftp-masters and a new security
team ready to replace the existing ones. Does this mean that you already
have good additional people that could (in your opinion) make a
difference in team dynamics and performance?
At that time I emphazised several times that replacing the teams
was only the very last, desperate option, which we were trying to
avoid but for completeness sake had considered along with a
variety of less drastical ones.
No. Making somebody a constitutional delegate does precisely one thing -
it gives the DPL the power to fire someone. It's hardly a secret that
adopting a resolution that, in effect, says "The DPL should be able to
fire the following people" is not something that encourages nice happy
behaviour where everyone involves goes for naked swimming and saunas.
It's a threat.

Now, it has been pointed out to you that threatening the people
concerned would be likely to make them resign. In fact, it would have
been an almost inevitable consequence of this GR. So saying that
"replacing the teams was only the very last, desperate option" is
somewhat disingenious - if you'd put forward that GR, you were going to
have to replace the teams.

(As an aside, the London Metropolitan police have denied having a
"shoot to kill" policy. They have a "shoot to incapacitate" policy.
Further questioning has revealed that, in this context, "shoot to
incapacitate" means "Unload your firearm into the suspect's head at
close range". The aim is to incapacitate, but a near-inevitable
consequence of the act is that the suspect is killed. You ought to be
able to see the parallels)
Post by Andreas Schuldei
I told you that we were trying to mediate, encourage
reconciliation, deescalate by getting different people to talk to
them, change the social setting to give them incentive to change,
etc.
You told me that you thought that that process had failed:

23:54 <stockholm> then he can find people who are able and willing to
work together and delegate to them, if all else fails.
23:54 <stockholm> so far, pretty much all has failed.

Why do you now believe otherwise?
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Post by Matthew Garrett
3) You have previously claimed that new people were formally delegated
to the security team during the past year. This was never announced on
debian-devel-announce, and these delegations were never posted on
http://www.debian.org/intro/organization . If you were unable to
successfully add people to teams then, why do you believe you would be
able to do so during your time as DPL?
<snip>
Post by Andreas Schuldei
During this conversation you yourself pointed out a major "flaw"
of my position at that time: I was not the DPL. This time around
I would be DPL when continuing to talk with these people, unlike
then, when I was only a DPL-team member. With the body of
developers empowering me to lead these negotiations these teams
would know that the Debian Community was very much interested in
the reform of their teams for the better and would most likey
consider it very seriously.
At that time, the DPL made two (unreported) formal delegations to the
security team. That didn't work. Why do you think they'd be any more
likely to respond to you in your role as DPL?
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Post by Matthew Garrett
4) You were planning to propose a GR that would have made the
ftp-masters formal delegates. However, at the time you had not actually
raised this with the ftp-masters. How does this fit with your desire for
the project to be more open and communicative?
Please see above. There had been talks and mails, even
face-to-face ones. People were informed of the intention to
delegate. Regarding not coming out with the GR out front,
irritating and potentially threatening them, was totally
intented. As written above I was interested to hear what my
fellow DDs thought and get feedback on it. The people were not
informed of the GR that never came to pass since they are overly
touchy and feel threatend quickly. Until you told them, that is.
Do you really think that it would have been wrong for people to consider
the following as a threat?

20:04 <stockholm> this is the summary of the GR text that we think
about:
20:04 <stockholm> he most serious of Debian's problems is that we have
people in key
20:04 <stockholm> infrastructural positions who monopolize
administrative powers, are opposed
20:04 <stockholm> to the idea of delegation, do not recognize the
Project Leader's authority,
20:04 <stockholm> and do little to nothing to educate others on how to
assist them or replace
20:04 <stockholm> them in those roles.
20:04 <stockholm> I think a GR reasserting the language of the
Consitution on this subject,
20:04 <stockholm> and explicitly stating the developers' expectation
that the Project Leader
20:04 <stockholm> will abolish any position of authority that is not
directly answerable to
20:04 <stockholm> the Project Leader (via delegation) and the developers
generally (via
20:04 <stockholm> General Resolution).

Let's be entirely clear here. You wanted to propose a GR that threatened
the existing ftp-masters, DSA and security team with being fired. You
didn't think that discussing this with the affected people in advance
was a good idea because they might have felt "threatened" because they
are "overly touchy".

Do you think that describing the security team, DSA and ftp-masters as
"overly touchy" brings harmony to Debian? Do you believe that it's
effective communication? Why do you believe that it would be "overly
touchy" to consider a GR with the sole aim of allowing the DPL to fire
people a threat?

17:55 <stockholm> we even have prepared for the case that they say "no,
we wont give you root"

Do you believe that it's possible to function as DPL when you don't feel
that you can trust people who do important work?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-***@srcf.ucam.org
Andreas Barth
2006-03-10 15:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
[...]
You reiterate things where Andreas clearly stated that you have
over-interpreted him.

What is the purpose of this? Do you have some personal issues with
Andreas Schuldei? Are you too unhappy that you didn't suceed in last
years election?


Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
Matthew Garrett
2006-03-10 15:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Barth
Hi,
[...]
You reiterate things where Andreas clearly stated that you have
over-interpreted him.
No. I reiterate things where Andreas has given misleading answers to
direct questions (he repeatedly denies wanting to replace people, but
attempted to get at least one person to take over elmo's position in
ftp-master, for instance).
Post by Andreas Barth
What is the purpose of this? Do you have some personal issues with
Andreas Schuldei?
I believe that Andreas would make a bad (and, indeed, dangerous) DPL,
and so am asking him questions that I believe he needs to answer. If the
answers are satisfactory (which, so far, they haven't been) then I will
revise my opinion of his suitability.
Post by Andreas Barth
Are you too unhappy that you didn't suceed in last years election?
That would be the one where I beat Andreas by a fairly large margin?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-***@srcf.ucam.org
Andreas Barth
2006-03-10 15:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Garrett
Post by Andreas Barth
[...]
You reiterate things where Andreas clearly stated that you have
over-interpreted him.
No. I reiterate things where Andreas has given misleading answers to
direct questions (he repeatedly denies wanting to replace people, but
attempted to get at least one person to take over elmo's position in
ftp-master, for instance).
I'm quite sure you can point out where he said that he wanted someone to
take over elmo's position in ftp-master.


Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
Matthew Garrett
2006-03-10 15:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Barth
Post by Matthew Garrett
No. I reiterate things where Andreas has given misleading answers to
direct questions (he repeatedly denies wanting to replace people, but
attempted to get at least one person to take over elmo's position in
ftp-master, for instance).
I'm quite sure you can point out where he said that he wanted someone to
take over elmo's position in ftp-master.
Ok. Based on what we've discussed on IRC, you'll admit that Andreas
attempted to get at least one person to agree to take responsibility for
elmo's role as lead ftp-master without consulting elmo first? I think
the difference is largely semantic, but, well.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-***@srcf.ucam.org
Andreas Schuldei
2006-03-10 22:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Garrett
Post by Andreas Barth
Post by Matthew Garrett
No. I reiterate things where Andreas has given misleading answers to
direct questions (he repeatedly denies wanting to replace people, but
attempted to get at least one person to take over elmo's position in
ftp-master, for instance).
I'm quite sure you can point out where he said that he wanted someone to
take over elmo's position in ftp-master.
Ok. Based on what we've discussed on IRC, you'll admit that Andreas
attempted to get at least one person to agree to take responsibility for
elmo's role as lead ftp-master without consulting elmo first? I think
the difference is largely semantic, but, well.
Part of the effords to determine what option there were I asked
Anthony Towns if he could take the lead in the ftp-master team.
The intention was not to remove James from the team and loose his
expertise but to unload him. That is what I said in the same irc
conversation, too, but you fail to quote that.

You are malicious on purpose, even. For example you quote the
very first ad-hoc draft, not the reworded one, which you said was
quite good. Why?

You are on a witch hunt. Stop it. I am not evil.

The only thing you manage to do is to demonstrate that I have
been very active during the year, talked to a lot of people,
looked at all conceivable options and discussed them with people
even outside the DPL team. Long before you and me talked on irc I
had several phone conversations with James and Joey to learn more
about the situation first hand. Have you done that, too?

Among other things I asked James what he thought could be done if
the team-internal reconciliation attempts that he wanted to
undertake (and by now even started) would fail and told him also
about the different escalation scenarios that I could imagine.
As far as I can recall we talked about three different options.
The best and most desireable one was reconciliation within the
team, enabling it to take up new members again (which james
himself wants, too, btw). I can't recall the middel scenario
right now. The worst case option that we talked about was the
implementation of a parallel infrastructure, run by an other
team. He was cool about that. It was clear to us both that it we
did not want this to happen and instead hoped (and worked) for
the reconciliation.

That was shortly after debconf, in august at latest. We were in
contact several times since then and usually he promised to write
the email to joey or calling him about getting together and
talking right after the phone call. Every time he was extremly
busy and had lots of things to do.

The conversation where i asked aj if he would consider serving as
head ftp-master and unload (not fire!) james was in oct 5th.

You and me talked in November, when still no attempt from james
had been made to contact joey about this.

i hope this puts your worries and this thread to rest.
Matthew Garrett
2006-03-10 22:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Post by Matthew Garrett
Ok. Based on what we've discussed on IRC, you'll admit that Andreas
attempted to get at least one person to agree to take responsibility for
elmo's role as lead ftp-master without consulting elmo first? I think
the difference is largely semantic, but, well.
Part of the effords to determine what option there were I asked
Anthony Towns if he could take the lead in the ftp-master team.
The intention was not to remove James from the team and loose his
expertise but to unload him. That is what I said in the same irc
conversation, too, but you fail to quote that.
I didn't claim that there was an attempt to remove James from the team.
I claimed that there was an attempt to remove responsibilities from him
without asking him beforehand.
Post by Andreas Schuldei
You are malicious on purpose, even. For example you quote the
very first ad-hoc draft, not the reworded one, which you said was
quite good. Why?
Because it's the one I have the text of, and because they're
semantically equivalent.
Post by Andreas Schuldei
You are on a witch hunt. Stop it. I am not evil.
Oh, I don't believe you're evil (despite you joking about wanting to
have me physically beaten because you didn't like an email I sent). I
just believe that having you as DPL would be a bad thing.
Post by Andreas Schuldei
The only thing you manage to do is to demonstrate that I have
been very active during the year, talked to a lot of people,
looked at all conceivable options and discussed them with people
even outside the DPL team. Long before you and me talked on irc I
had several phone conversations with James and Joey to learn more
about the situation first hand. Have you done that, too?
No, but I did spend a great deal of time trying to talk you out of
things I thought were harmful and trying to convince people not to quit
the project because of things you were proposing to do. I acknowledge
that you've spent a great deal of time and effort on Debian in the past
year.

(How many of last year's DPL team are willing to serve again with you as
DPL?)
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-***@srcf.ucam.org
Andreas Schuldei
2006-03-10 23:18:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Garrett
(How many of last year's DPL team are willing to serve again with you as
DPL?)
I dont know, really. All that I asked would like to be on my DPL
team next term. Those were Steve and Enrico.

I did not ask Joeren for obvious reasons.

Bdale is a busy man and eventhough I would like to see him as a
"continuos guest" on the team, providing insight and councel when
he is there, I think that his schedule does not allow him to
engage himself as deeply as I would hope to see it from a full
member.

Same goes for Mako.

I did not consider asking Branden because he seems to need a
timeout.
Matthew Garrett
2006-03-10 23:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Schuldei
I did not ask Joeren for obvious reasons.
What were those obvious reasons? You and Branden stood against each
other despite agreeing to be on each other's team, so I'm curious as to
why the same isn't true this year.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-***@srcf.ucam.org
Andreas Schuldei
2006-03-11 00:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Garrett
Post by Andreas Schuldei
I did not ask Joeren for obvious reasons.
What were those obvious reasons? You and Branden stood against each
other despite agreeing to be on each other's team, so I'm curious as to
why the same isn't true this year.
It came as a surprise to me to have a contender in my own team
when I returned from my skiing vacation last year. I did not want
a similar situation this year again.

I guess if I win this year and think Joeren could complement my
team with a skill it was still lacking I would ask him.

The good thing about our voting system is that you cant split
votes. By running seperatly (and both being team based) we give
people a wider choice of candiates with teams. That is a good
thing since everyone who thinks he can do this alone without
being just a figure head fools himself and the whole Debian
project. Both he and I understood that and can provide a real
choice to the voters.
Anthony Towns
2006-03-11 01:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Schuldei
That is a good
thing since everyone who thinks he can do this alone without
being just a figure head fools himself and the whole Debian
project. Both he and I understood that and can provide a real
choice to the voters.
Do you think the other candidates will be trying to "do this alone"?

There are a few reasons to dislike the "DPL team" concept without going
it alone; such as the liklihood of formal membership making it difficult
for non-members to contribute in the same way members do, or the way that
making the team be an issue at election-time tends to politicise it --
if Steve and Andi are working with you, does that mean they're working
against me or Joroen? The technical committee has a policy (written into
the constitution, no less!) of doing all its deliberations in the open [0],
while the DPL team over the past year seems to have operated quite privately,
if not secretively.

At the very least, with no action required on their part at all,
whoever is elected DPL will have the technical committee, dozens of
infrastructure maintainers, and hundreds of developers, new maintainers
and other contributors ready to offer advice and assistance.

Cheers,
aj

[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/03/msg00065.html
Raphael Hertzog
2006-03-11 09:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Towns
There are a few reasons to dislike the "DPL team" concept without going
it alone; such as the liklihood of formal membership making it difficult
for non-members to contribute in the same way members do, or the way that
making the team be an issue at election-time tends to politicise it --
if Steve and Andi are working with you, does that mean they're working
against me or Joroen?
Certainly not. I have accepted to be on Andrea's team because I want to
help Debian and had no particular reason to refuse his invitation (even if
I don't think that stockholm would do the best DPL).

But I will certainly offer my help to another DPL like Steve and you.
Post by Anthony Towns
The technical committee has a policy (written into
the constitution, no less!) of doing all its deliberations in the open [0],
while the DPL team over the past year seems to have operated quite privately,
if not secretively.
That's right, and this really needs to change. But this thread explains
partly why many things got done privately ... and with another approach
I'm convinced that we can do better.

Single DPL or DPL team, both have pros and both have cons.

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Adeodato Simó
2006-03-11 14:32:25 UTC
Permalink
(even if I don't think that stockholm would do the best DPL).
Is this a statement, or an hypothesis? If a statement, then I feel
compelled to ask: who would?
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org

Listening to: Andrés Calamaro - Mi Propia Trampa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Raphael Hertzog
2006-03-11 16:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adeodato Simó
(even if I don't think that stockholm would do the best DPL).
Is this a statement, or an hypothesis? If a statement, then I feel
compelled to ask: who would?
It's a statement that I will not rank stockholm first this year (given
everything I've seen and given my own feelings). Of course, not a single
candidate is perfect, so it depends on the criterion used to differentiate
them.

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
2006-03-11 15:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Post by Matthew Garrett
Post by Andreas Schuldei
I did not ask Joeren for obvious reasons.
What were those obvious reasons? You and Branden stood against each
other despite agreeing to be on each other's team, so I'm curious as to
why the same isn't true this year.
It came as a surprise to me to have a contender in my own team
when I returned from my skiing vacation last year. I did not want
a similar situation this year again.
This year, team formation is happening after nominations are already
over, so your fear makes no sense.

Within the DPL team, I discussed at the beginning of the nomination
period who would run this year. I announced that I would most likely
nominate myself. Why didn't you inform the rest of the team you were
considering to run again until you nominated yourself publicly? That was
a surprise for me.
Post by Andreas Schuldei
The good thing about our voting system is that you cant split
votes. By running seperatly (and both being team based) we give
people a wider choice of candiates with teams. That is a good
thing since everyone who thinks he can do this alone without
being just a figure head fools himself and the whole Debian
project. Both he and I understood that and can provide a real
choice to the voters.
I don't understand, identical teams or not, there would've been two
candidates with a team? Are the other five candidates all fools, or
running to become a figure head?

If that's what you wanted to write, I strongly disagree.

--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
***@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
James Troup
2006-03-11 14:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Part of the effords to determine what option there were I asked
Anthony Towns if he could take the lead in the ftp-master team.
What you in fact said, amongst other things, was:

| <stockholm> so, in summary, can i conclude that you are not really
| willing to become lead ftp-master, with some HR
| responsibility and coaching new people?

And this happened on the 5th of October, which according to my IRC
logs was during the time you were still calling me on a fairly regular
basis. You had not talked to me about this at all, in person, on the
phone, on IRC or by email. ftp-master in October was certainly not a
source of problems in any way that could sanely be used to justify
replacing me, as far as I'm aware.

So, AFAIC, you were trying to orchestrate an internal coup in
ftp-master by backroom deals not because the team was fundamentally
broken or a source of serious problems but because you decided that
you knew best how that team should be organised.

My questions are:

(1) Do you count this as part of your "considerable experience in
how to organise Debian from a leadship (sic) role"?

(2) Is this modus operandi something you learned from "[your]
experience in implementing change in volunteer driven scenarios"?

(3) In your platform you said:

"As DPL I will lead this work further, which leaves us with more
transparent, dynamic and communicative core teams."

Do you think that approaching a member of a team in private and
trying to convince him to hijack the team is conducive to
transparent, dynamic and communicative teams?

(4) You also said: "Debian needs to care more about its contributors."

Is secretly trying to get other members of a team I'm on to
hijack it from me how you show you care about me?

(5) You also said:

"as a first step towards a more communicative system, and
following, a higher regard and appreciation for those who
volunteer and perform these roles. This would also lead to a
more friendly, and productive relationship between developers
who require help from these teams, and those within it."

Likewise, how do you reconcile these fine sounding goals with
what you did/tried to do? "communicative", "higher regard",
"friendly" etc.

(6) Finally, is this how other team changes are going to be
implemented if you get elected?
--
James
Loading Image...
Andreas Schuldei
2006-03-11 18:37:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Troup
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Part of the effords to determine what option there were I asked
Anthony Towns if he could take the lead in the ftp-master team.
| <stockholm> so, in summary, can i conclude that you are not really
| willing to become lead ftp-master, with some HR
| responsibility and coaching new people?
You could have given a quote where i also gave a reason:

14:04 <stockholm> i wanted to know if you could imagine to take
bigger responsibility in ftp-masters.
14:04 <stockholm> since elmo is really busy
Post by James Troup
And this happened on the 5th of October, which according to my IRC
logs was during the time you were still calling me on a fairly regular
basis.
About once a month.
Post by James Troup
You had not talked to me about this at all, in person, on the
phone, on IRC or by email.
We talked about tons of stuff. Anthony unloading you was
certainly not my mail thrust. It was just an idea that popped up
and I wanted to follow up on it for completeness.
Post by James Troup
ftp-master in October was certainly not a source of problems in
any way that could sanely be used to justify replacing me, as
far as I'm aware.
You were very busy and I knew you and joey had issues and a hard
time working together. In the same IRC conversation I first asked
Anthony about his working relationship with Joey. He would have
been an excellent contact point inside FTP-master to work with
him on e.g. his stable point releases. It would have been an easy
and smooth way to avoid conflicts between you and Joey in that
respect in the future. Unfortunatly I learned that could not work
for personal reasons, either. I think I did not ask Ryan to help
you and Joey out since I knew already from Joey that the two did
not get along so well. I am not sure, though. Have you asked
Ryan?

Why did you not mention this context here? It was in the same log,
and it would have given a more ballanced picture of the
situation. It shows (once again) that I in fact tried to scout
out options for conflict resolution and avoidance.
Post by James Troup
So, AFAIC, you were trying to orchestrate an internal coup in
ftp-master by backroom deals not because the team was fundamentally
broken or a source of serious problems but because you decided that
you knew best how that team should be organised.
I knew you and Anthony were buddies. I never expected, let alone
asked Anthony (or Ryan?) to keep this idea a secret from anyone.
If I ever had plotted anything against you, Anthony or Ryan
would certainly have been the worst choice to ask this. This
should give you a hint: I tried to help you (as I said in the
chat), not undermine your position.
Martin Schulze
2006-03-11 21:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Schuldei
You were very busy and I knew you and joey had issues and a hard
time working together. In the same IRC conversation I first asked
Anthony about his working relationship with Joey. He would have
been an excellent contact point inside FTP-master to work with
him on e.g. his stable point releases. It would have been an easy
and smooth way to avoid conflicts between you and Joey in that
respect in the future. Unfortunatly I learned that could not work
for personal reasons, either. I think I did not ask Ryan to help
you and Joey out since I knew already from Joey that the two did
not get along so well. I am not sure, though. Have you asked
Ryan?
For what it's worth, I don't have a personal problem with either James
or Ryan. My problems are that James and Ryan as ftpmasters are often
quite unresponsive to mail, that both as wanna-build admins have been
quite unresponsive via mail and that both as security.debian.org
infrastructure admin have been quite unresponsive via mail.

As you guessed it, mail is my preferred means of communication. Mail
should work since this is a world-wide and international project with
different up- and downtimes of their members.

Ryan told me that I should send mail and pester him via IRC afterwards
for infrastructure/w-b issues. That's giving me a hard time, but I'll
try to do so (there was no need for a long time, though).

Regards,

Joey
--
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
Andreas Barth
2006-03-10 22:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Garrett
Post by Andreas Barth
Post by Matthew Garrett
No. I reiterate things where Andreas has given misleading answers to
direct questions (he repeatedly denies wanting to replace people, but
attempted to get at least one person to take over elmo's position in
ftp-master, for instance).
I'm quite sure you can point out where he said that he wanted someone to
take over elmo's position in ftp-master.
Ok. Based on what we've discussed on IRC, you'll admit that Andreas
attempted to get at least one person to agree to take responsibility for
elmo's role as lead ftp-master without consulting elmo first? I think
the difference is largely semantic, but, well.
Quite interessting that you sent out that mail a few minutes after I
told you I'm going away from my computer. Well done.

Anyways, I disagree with that statement. If your cited sentence is
correct, Andreas has investigated whether someone (and you refused to
tell who, it might be even someone in the role of an ftp-master) might
be interessted in becoming lead ftp-master without asking James Troup
for permission first for that investigation. As far as I know James, it
is possible to speak with other people about solutions without offending
him. And I can understand if Andreas makes a first research round
without asking James about each candidate first - if there seems to be a
competent and willing candidate available, there is still enough time to
discuss that with James. And it is really something quite different
whether one "attempt to get someone to take over elmo's position" (in
other words, hijack that), or whether he investigates whether there is
someone else who is both competent and interessted, and then try to get
a common agreement.

Oh, BTW, I hope I didn't do anything equally wrong for you when I talked
to Anthony today about stable point releases on an IRC channel where
James wasn't present. I know that James doesn't really mind, but you
might.



Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
Matthew Garrett
2006-03-10 22:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Barth
Post by Matthew Garrett
Ok. Based on what we've discussed on IRC, you'll admit that Andreas
attempted to get at least one person to agree to take responsibility for
elmo's role as lead ftp-master without consulting elmo first? I think
the difference is largely semantic, but, well.
Quite interessting that you sent out that mail a few minutes after I
told you I'm going away from my computer. Well done.
Your complaint was over the fact that you interpreted "replace" as
meaning elmo would no longer be an ftp-master. I clarified that.
Post by Andreas Barth
Anyways, I disagree with that statement. If your cited sentence is
correct, Andreas has investigated whether someone (and you refused to
tell who, it might be even someone in the role of an ftp-master) might
be interessted in becoming lead ftp-master without asking James Troup
for permission first for that investigation.
Correct. Or, as I said, "Andreas attempted to get at least one person to
agree to take responsibility for elmo's role as lead ftp-master without
consulting elmo first"
Post by Andreas Barth
As far as I know James, it is possible to speak with other people
about solutions without offending him. And I can understand if
Andreas makes a first research round without asking James about each
candidate first - if there seems to be a competent and willing
candidate available, there is still enough time to discuss that with
James. And it is really something quite different whether one "attempt
to get someone to take over elmo's position" (in other words, hijack
that), or whether he investigates whether there is someone else who is
both competent and interessted, and then try to get a common
agreement.
No, I think it's entirely unacceptable to start asking around for people
willing to take over someone's responsibilities without first checking
if they're willing to relinquish them. It's a clear statement that you
don't think they're performing their duties well enough.
Post by Andreas Barth
Oh, BTW, I hope I didn't do anything equally wrong for you when I talked
to Anthony today about stable point releases on an IRC channel where
James wasn't present. I know that James doesn't really mind, but you
might.
Not at all. However, I should probably point out that I'll be doing your
job as a member of Andreas's DPL team now. I've decided that you simply
aren't good enough at it, and someone on IRC suggested that I'd do a
better job than you. You're welcome to hang around, but all the
difficult stuff is up to me now. Hope you don't mind.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-***@srcf.ucam.org
Andreas Schuldei
2006-03-10 21:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Garrett
Post by Andreas Schuldei
The GR was intendet to clarify that point.
However, in a small oppinion poll I found that this apparently
was already clear to everyone in the project. A GR would not have
added much value but instead created unnecessary unrest and work
No, that doesn't make sense. Phrasing it like that makes it sound like
the GR was intended to have no effect, but at the time you were willing
to discuss the fact that it may be necessary to replace the existing
ftp-masters and security team. In fact, you'd already planned for that.
Me being a good organizer made it easy to for me to look ahead
and look at different outcomes and plan for the different
scenarios, in order to limit disruption and damage to the project
to a minimum. let me quote myself:

"At that time I emphazised several times that replacing the teams
was only the very last, desperate option, which we were trying to
avoid but for completeness sake had considered along with a
variety of less drastical ones."
Post by Matthew Garrett
Post by Andreas Schuldei
At that time I emphazised several times that replacing the teams
was only the very last, desperate option, which we were trying to
avoid but for completeness sake had considered along with a
variety of less drastical ones.
No. Making somebody a constitutional delegate does precisely one thing -
it gives the DPL the power to fire someone.
The great majority of people I talked with considered the core
teams delegates already.

I would not think that delegates in Debian need to live with the
fear of being fired. It never happend before. Leaders are happy
if there are people who do the work. The idea of delegating to
someone in order to fire him is novel in itself and was certainly
not on our mind.

I would like to know if anyone else besides you ever got that
idea.
Post by Matthew Garrett
Post by Andreas Schuldei
I told you that we were trying to mediate, encourage
reconciliation, deescalate by getting different people to talk to
them, change the social setting to give them incentive to change,
etc.
23:54 <stockholm> then he can find people who are able and willing to
work together and delegate to them, if all else fails.
23:54 <stockholm> so far, pretty much all has failed.
Why do you now believe otherwise?
Pigs can fly and the Security Team is changing. I like to believe
that the DPL team had a role in that. If it worked so well for
the security team, why do you think it should be impossible for
the other core teams? To be a leader reqires to have hope for the
future. I still have that and I will pursue those possible
scenarios that I belive hold most promise, trying to staying
clear of the destructive ones.
Post by Matthew Garrett
At that time, the DPL made two (unreported) formal delegations to the
security team. That didn't work. Why do you think they'd be any more
likely to respond to you in your role as DPL?
Change is possibel. There is hope. See above. Besides: The goal
is not to delegate people forcibly into teams, it always has
been to stimulate jammed teams to reform themselfs.
Post by Matthew Garrett
Do you really think that it would have been wrong for people to consider
the following as a threat?
you quote the very first draft of a GR that never came to past.
There was a second one and you yourself said it was much better.
Why do you paste here the first draft that I right
away admitted to have flaws? Why do you try to manipulate your
fellow DDs in such a way and did not even mention the second
version you liked?
Post by Matthew Garrett
Let's be entirely clear here. You wanted to propose a GR that threatened
the existing ftp-masters, DSA and security team with being fired. You
didn't think that discussing this with the affected people in advance
was a good idea because they might have felt "threatened" because they
are "overly touchy".
Actually I have an irc log here where an FTP master admits to be
overly sensitive as soon as it comes to his office. Therefor I
tried to avoid a ruckus for their sake.

If it is impossible to address certain topics or even covers up
questionably behaviour for others it is likely that one is caught
in a state of codependency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codependency

Some people in Debian suffer from this already. The DPL must not
do that or he is unable to lead the project unimpared and is
unable to say or do some things that are unavoidable to help the
project overcome some of it's problems.
Post by Matthew Garrett
Do you think that describing the security team, DSA and ftp-masters as
"overly touchy" brings harmony to Debian?
You seem a tad codependent.
Martin Schulze
2006-03-10 21:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Pigs can fly and the Security Team is changing. I like to believe
that the DPL team had a role in that. If it worked so well for
It didn't have.

The changes were underway and in discussion independently.
Post by Andreas Schuldei
the security team, why do you think it should be impossible for
the other core teams? To be a leader reqires to have hope for the
future. I still have that and I will pursue those possible
scenarios that I belive hold most promise, trying to staying
clear of the destructive ones.
Regards,

Joey
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
martin f krafft
2006-03-10 22:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Schulze
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Pigs can fly and the Security Team is changing. I like to believe
that the DPL team had a role in that. If it worked so well for
It didn't have.
The changes were underway and in discussion independently.
Not trying to pick on anyone here, but the DPL team came into play
and I sparked the Oldenburg security meeting idea, and *then* things
started moving. If they'd been underway long before, I wouldn't be
able to tell because noone was informed.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!

.''`. martin f. krafft <***@debian.org>
: :' : proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system

Invalid/expired PGP (sub)keys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!

"there are lots of reasons not to use linux.
there just aren't any good ones."
--steven j. vaughan-nichols
Martin Schulze
2006-03-10 23:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by martin f krafft
Post by Martin Schulze
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Pigs can fly and the Security Team is changing. I like to believe
that the DPL team had a role in that. If it worked so well for
It didn't have.
The changes were underway and in discussion independently.
Not trying to pick on anyone here, but the DPL team came into play
and I sparked the Oldenburg security meeting idea, and *then* things
started moving. If they'd been underway long before, I wouldn't be
able to tell because noone was informed.
Wrong.

The security team has discussed issues internally long before some
people met in Oldenburg.

Regards,

Joey
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
martin f krafft
2006-03-11 04:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Schulze
Post by martin f krafft
Post by Martin Schulze
It didn't have.
The changes were underway and in discussion independently.
Not trying to pick on anyone here, but the DPL team came into play
and I sparked the Oldenburg security meeting idea, and *then* things
started moving. If they'd been underway long before, I wouldn't be
able to tell because noone was informed.
Wrong.
How can any of the above be wrong? Maybe I failed to make it
explicit that *it seemed to me* (and not only me) that things
started moving only after...
Post by Martin Schulze
The security team has discussed issues internally long before some
people met in Oldenburg.
This is exactly one example where more transparency could benefit
all involved.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!

.''`. martin f. krafft <***@debian.org>
: :' : proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system

Invalid/expired PGP (sub)keys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!

"most people become bankrupt through having invested too heavily in
the prose of life. to have ruined one's self over poetry is an
honour."
-- oscar wilde
Martin Schulze
2006-03-11 08:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by martin f krafft
Post by Martin Schulze
Post by martin f krafft
Post by Martin Schulze
It didn't have.
The changes were underway and in discussion independently.
Not trying to pick on anyone here, but the DPL team came into play
and I sparked the Oldenburg security meeting idea, and *then* things
started moving. If they'd been underway long before, I wouldn't be
able to tell because noone was informed.
Wrong.
How can any of the above be wrong? Maybe I failed to make it
explicit that *it seemed to me* (and not only me) that things
started moving only after...
You wrote "and then things started moving", which is wrong because
restructuring the security team was already in discussion and part
of it already implemented.

Regards,

Joey
--
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
Matthew Garrett
2006-03-10 22:09:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Post by Matthew Garrett
No, that doesn't make sense. Phrasing it like that makes it sound like
the GR was intended to have no effect, but at the time you were willing
to discuss the fact that it may be necessary to replace the existing
ftp-masters and security team. In fact, you'd already planned for that.
Me being a good organizer made it easy to for me to look ahead
and look at different outcomes and plan for the different
scenarios, in order to limit disruption and damage to the project
Hang on a moment. You said "I found that this apparently was already
clear to everyone in the project" (referring to the people concerned
already being delegates). So, the GR should have had no effect at all,
right?

But that can't be true, because otherwise you wouldn't have needed to
consider the consequences of them refusing to accept these positions. In
fact, you'd considered that possibility to be sufficiently likely that
you'd actually gone to the effort of ensuring you had enough machines
available to build an entirely new Debian infrastructure.

The basic truth is that you wanted this GR because you wanted it to be
possible to force the teams to do things when they didn't do what you
wanted, and you were fully aware that they would probably refuse. There
is absolutely no other reason for wanting a GR on this issue.
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Post by Matthew Garrett
No. Making somebody a constitutional delegate does precisely one thing -
it gives the DPL the power to fire someone.
The great majority of people I talked with considered the core
teams delegates already.
But they don't consider themselves delegates already. I think that's
been discussed quite adequately already.
Post by Andreas Schuldei
I would not think that delegates in Debian need to live with the
fear of being fired. It never happend before. Leaders are happy
if there are people who do the work. The idea of delegating to
someone in order to fire him is novel in itself and was certainly
not on our mind.
The only difference between a delegate and a non-delegate is that
delegates can be fired if they don't do what the DPL or the rest of the
project like what they're doing. I put this to you in November, and you
didn't disagree. If you don't think that anyone would ever want to fire
them, why would you want to make them delegates?
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Post by Matthew Garrett
23:54 <stockholm> then he can find people who are able and willing to
work together and delegate to them, if all else fails.
23:54 <stockholm> so far, pretty much all has failed.
Why do you now believe otherwise?
Pigs can fly and the Security Team is changing. I like to believe
that the DPL team had a role in that. If it worked so well for
the security team, why do you think it should be impossible for
the other core teams? To be a leader reqires to have hope for the
future. I still have that and I will pursue those possible
scenarios that I belive hold most promise, trying to staying
clear of the destructive ones.
So why did you appear to have no hope last November?

<stockholm> they wont talk to me anymore
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Post by Matthew Garrett
At that time, the DPL made two (unreported) formal delegations to the
security team. That didn't work. Why do you think they'd be any more
likely to respond to you in your role as DPL?
Change is possibel. There is hope. See above. Besides: The goal
is not to delegate people forcibly into teams, it always has
been to stimulate jammed teams to reform themselfs.
But you've already discussed forcibly adding people to teams - that's
how this thread got started. You still haven't said how you expect that
to work, given that the previous attempt failed.
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Post by Matthew Garrett
Do you really think that it would have been wrong for people to consider
the following as a threat?
you quote the very first draft of a GR that never came to past.
There was a second one and you yourself said it was much better.
Why do you paste here the first draft that I right
away admitted to have flaws? Why do you try to manipulate your
fellow DDs in such a way and did not even mention the second
version you liked?
Because the two drafts carried the same meaning, even though the
language was different. You admitted that you felt the first draft was
non-ideal, but you didn't appear to disagree with it. The message was
very clear - you believed that certain teams within the project were not
accountable to the project leader, and you wanted them to be made
accountable so that they could be forced to do what the DPL wanted them
to do. No matter how you word that, it's a threat. It's "Behave
yourself, or you'll be overruled". It's not a nice thing to do.
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Post by Matthew Garrett
Let's be entirely clear here. You wanted to propose a GR that threatened
the existing ftp-masters, DSA and security team with being fired. You
didn't think that discussing this with the affected people in advance
was a good idea because they might have felt "threatened" because they
are "overly touchy".
Actually I have an irc log here where an FTP master admits to be
overly sensitive as soon as it comes to his office. Therefor I
tried to avoid a ruckus for their sake.
For the sake of one ftp master's personal feelings, you failed to tell
any of the other people that would be affected by this GR? Full marks
for communication and transparency.
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Post by Matthew Garrett
Do you think that describing the security team, DSA and ftp-masters as
"overly touchy" brings harmony to Debian?
You seem a tad codependent.
I'll accept your diagnosis when you let me know (a) which university you
recieved your degree in psychology from, or (b) in which state you are
licensed to practise psychiatry. Until then, would you mind answering
the question?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-***@srcf.ucam.org
Steve Langasek
2006-03-11 16:47:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Schuldei
Post by Matthew Garrett
Post by Andreas Schuldei
At that time I emphazised several times that replacing the teams
was only the very last, desperate option, which we were trying to
avoid but for completeness sake had considered along with a
variety of less drastical ones.
No. Making somebody a constitutional delegate does precisely one thing -
it gives the DPL the power to fire someone.
The great majority of people I talked with considered the core
teams delegates already.
I would not think that delegates in Debian need to live with the
fear of being fired. It never happend before. Leaders are happy
if there are people who do the work. The idea of delegating to
someone in order to fire him is novel in itself and was certainly
not on our mind.
I would like to know if anyone else besides you ever got that
idea.
Er, I raised this exact objection when these "clarification" delegations
were being discussed. It was clear from the context, and from what *roles*
people were looking to have delegated, that this was an attempt to exercise
control over certain "problematic" teams: even though the release team
occupies the same ambiguous status in Debian of never having been a formal
DPL delegation, all of the focus was on delegating teams like the security
team because there's a public perception that the release team works well
and that the security team doesn't.

And since the only real control delegation gives is the power of the DPL to
dismiss the delegate, it's not a stretch for someone to think that making
someone a delegate in an area they're already responsible for means you
*want* to fire them. I cautioned that delegation was only relevant to
improving the functioning of these teams if the plan was to replace the
current team members.

Ultimately, though, it seems we in fact *don't* want to fire these teams,
since this GR didn't come to pass.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
***@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Matthew Garrett
2006-03-10 17:39:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Garrett
Last November, you and the DPL team wanted to propose a GR that would
have forcibly made everyone in a position of authority a formal
delegate, and stated that you had replacements ready if they were
unwilling to comply.
It's been pointed out to me that this isn't something that all of the
DPL team were involved in, so I'd like to apologise for that. Most
relevantly, I don't believe that Jeroen was pushing for this at all.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-***@srcf.ucam.org
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
2006-03-11 14:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Last November, [Andreas] and the DPL team wanted to propose a GR that
would have forcibly made everyone in a position of authority a formal
delegate, and stated that you had replacements ready if they were
unwilling to comply.
I'd like to emphasise, as you later noted, that this was not something
the DPL team wanted. Andreas discussed this within the DPL team, and I
told Andreas in November very clearly that I thought it was a very bad
idea.

--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
***@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...