MJ Ray | 1 Nov 10:52 2006

Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2

Kalle Kivimaa <kalle.kivimaa <at> iki.fi> wrote: [...]
> Which issues would those be, then?

I've posted lists in the past, such as
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00409.html

> If I look at the controversial issues aj has rised, I find these
> three:
> 
> 1. Sven vs. the rest of the d-i team mediation
> 2. Using project funds to pay some developers
> 3. Revoking the policy editor delegation
> 
> In #1 aj was explicitly asked to make a decision by a party in the
> controversy. In #2 aj first solicited opinions and then decided *not*
> to go forward. #3 was a snap judgement based on the behaviour of a
> delegate and it looks like aj is already reconsidering it.

AFAIK, I've not seen the request to aj for No.1 and he described it as
being asked to review the situation - not to issue a ruling - in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/05/msg00235.html
It is still a current problem.

In No.2, aj decided to pay developers outside the project's control
by calling for donations to "fund debian release managers" instead of
improving dunc-tank, and there are no published measures or methods
for this "experiment" on our project AFAICT.  It is a non-design.

No.3 already has a Discussion Is Over - maybe it won't be so, but what
a way to consider something!
(Continue reading)

Sven Luther | 1 Nov 11:09 2006
Picon

Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:52:59AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Kalle Kivimaa <kalle.kivimaa <at> iki.fi> wrote: [...]
> > Which issues would those be, then?
> 
> I've posted lists in the past, such as
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00409.html
> 
> > If I look at the controversial issues aj has rised, I find these
> > three:
> > 
> > 1. Sven vs. the rest of the d-i team mediation
> > 2. Using project funds to pay some developers
> > 3. Revoking the policy editor delegation
    4. Aj's handling of the non-free firmware vote.

Aj asked me to hold my call for vote on frederik's proposal, and asked that we
come up with a 'consensual' proposal. he then claims Manoj's proposal is
consensual, while not only it is clear it is not, and it is contrary to the
will of the kernel team. He then let's Manoj manipulate the vote to get his
pet resolution voted and avoid having the better 'consensual' resolution,
leaving the whole issue a complete mess, and forcing the RMs to release an
interpretation of the vote, which is at odds with what was actually voted on.

> > In #1 aj was explicitly asked to make a decision by a party in the
> > controversy. In #2 aj first solicited opinions and then decided *not*
> > to go forward. #3 was a snap judgement based on the behaviour of a
> > delegate and it looks like aj is already reconsidering it.
> 
> AFAIK, I've not seen the request to aj for No.1 and he described it as
> being asked to review the situation - not to issue a ruling - in
(Continue reading)

MJ Ray | 1 Nov 12:39 2006

Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2

Sven Luther <sven.luther <at> wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> [...] aj's inability to mediate [...] is what left us with this mess.

Not really.  Messages like 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01054.html 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01075.html and 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/04/msg01076.html left us with 
that mess, but the ruling didn't offer any way to clear this mess up in 
the long term.

> But then, it is probably because aj was afraid that [...]

I don't see how guessing others' views helps here.
--

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Sven Luther | 1 Nov 12:53 2006
Picon

Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 11:39:05AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther <at> wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > [...] aj's inability to mediate [...] is what left us with this mess.
> 
> Not really.  Messages like 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01054.html 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01075.html and 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/04/msg01076.html left us with 
> that mess, but the ruling didn't offer any way to clear this mess up in 
> the long term.

Well, yes, the idea of the mediation was to solve the issue, not let it stay
open forever, and hope it would go away. I have tried to do my best, but Frans
is simply not making any effort, and since he has all the power and
satisfaction, why should he ?

Still, we can both agree 

> > But then, it is probably because aj was afraid that [...]
> 
> I don't see how guessing others' views helps here.

Well, given that the main complaint seems to be that frans did feel that i was
not respectful enough (private communication, so no mail archive), and others
have hinted that the release of etch was more important than solving this
(again private irc exchange), i really don't know what else to guess.

It would have helped if the mediation had involved some clear listing of the
actual grieves, instead of giving all the reason to frans as it did.

(Continue reading)


Gmane