Re: We have a problem
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 08:45:58PM +0100, Dave Hibberd wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 02:50:29PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> > Actually, I don't care who is in the uploaders list. The thing I am
> > concerned with is Iain's lack of notifying even the people he *knows* are
> > responsive he is changing their role with respect to a package.
> >
> > The issue has nothing to do with the uploaders list (except that is the latest
> > change made), and everything to do with cooperating with a group maintained
> > package environment. A simple email to the list stating "hey, I'm about to
> > upload a new version of package x. I've added/removed the following people.
> > If you want to be added or removed please let me know" - that's all it would
> > have taken - a courtesy to people who may be interested in such changes before
> > they are made. The same as "I'm working on a new version of package <>, does
> > anyone else have changes" is useful to send before you start updating a package
> > to keep everyone up to date.
> >
> > Pat
>
> Hey Pat,
>
> I'm Dave, MM3ZRZ - we've not met but I've been hanging around in the
> fringes for some time now, doing wee bits and bobs to help out here and
> there and taking an active interest in this part of the Debian project
> as a place to get my toes wet.
Dave, nice to virtually meet you.
>
> To address what is directly above - what you have raised is a very valid
> point regarding common courtesy to members of the team. Yes - an
> email to the list or in private before the package was uploaded would
> have been considerate, but as has been intimated already it was
> discussed in IRC and approved by those active.
>
> This is not Iain's failing alone - it belongs to all of us that were in
> the channel who didn't consider this might be an issue. Sorry about
> that.
>
> However, I would like to add a few observations of my own to the mud
> slinging contest in what is hopefully a constructive manner.
>
> The initial email from yourself that triggered this tirade:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-hams/2015/05/msg00060.html
>
> Did not suggest that you were annoyed that a team breakdown in
> communication had occurred - it reads as an attack on an enthusiastic
> and excited member of the team.
>
> Perhaps a more constructive approach would have been to bring the
> grievance about communication to the team as it is written above and
> state you were unhappy with Iain's actions, allowing everyone else their
> window to justify this instead of argue and defend against what looks
> like a personal attack.
>
Yes, I was using the example to try to illustrate the issue. As for the
"personal attack" - I would say that is a slight overstatement. I stated
the facts as they were known to me. Iain *is* the person who did what I
stated. You can not testify to the acts of someone without naming the someone.
> Moving further back in history to soundmodem - You assert that Iain had
> not done his research correctly and that he was determined to remove the
> package based on bad information. You also request that Iain does more
> research when he makes assertions on your involvement in packages.
>
> Please do not assert what you do not know - this advice goes to Iain and
> all others too. It only serves to enflame embedded opinions and rile
> others into unproductive bullet point arguments as we've seen today.
>
> For what little it's worth at this stage, I can attest to Iain
> researching this to the best of his ability and relying on many others
> to come to this conclusion. Emailing the developer - I don't know if he
> did this or not - however it is good advice and a lesson learned for him
> to take forward as an aspiring Debian Developer, as well as for the rest
> of us.
>
I agree it is a dangerous thing to claim to know the mind of another, however
I think the public facts in this instance speak for themselves. Iain filed a
bug asserting soundmodem was unmaintained. A very short time later Thomas
Sailer (the upstream maintainer) responded *to the list* asking where Iain's
evidence for such a claim was and giving him the correct information.
I stand by my admonition that Iain needed to do a bit more research there.
had he *asked* me I would have been able to tell him my historical involvement
in soundmodem and possibly pointed him to the current upstream.
> Winding the clock futher back still to ax25-node and it's proposal for
> removal from Debian, which has been passively referenced today:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=778843
>
> You closed this bug report with a brief statement, despite the report
> being sent to this mailing list, a perfect platform for discussion
> before actions are taken with little to no explanation. In future,
> would you be willing to discuss things like this in more detail before
> the final action is taken?
>
That is not the passive reference, but rather the node-js issue was referenced.
The nodejs camp wanted to usurp the node name despite the already existing
node package for ax25. It was long and messy, and eventually went to the
tech committee.
The item you reference was a duplicate bug report. The same as #777013.
The proper way to ask for a new package is to file a wishlist bug against
the WNPP list. I closed the bug with comments to that effect, and the closed
report was sent to the list. #777013 is still open, and I am working on
a solution for this issue.
I had a subsequent discussion with Iain about these issues.
> Others could learn from the advice and history all our Debian Developers
> can give in these discussions, and we can have a paper trail for decisions
> that may affect the future of the Debian Project in place of confusion
> and a bad taste.
>
> To continue the arguments at this stage would be folly - we appear to
> be drawing lines for battle instead of working as a team.
We can only work as a team if everyone is willing to communicate. Making
decisions on channels that are not available (for what ever reason) to everyone
in the group and implementing them without notifying the people who were not
part of the discussion is effectively removing them from the team.
The time honored method for communicating with teams for non-urgent changes
has always been the mailing list. IRC is good for real time and/or urgent
things - things that debian hams really doesn't have a lot of.
If IRC is working for a sub-group, great but someone needs to bring the results
of that discussion back to the rest of us.
>
> Thanks for your time and feedback - I hope in future we can all work
> together as a coherent unit bonded by our passions and friendship.
>
I appreciate your input (really, I do).
Pat
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)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=IbGv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: