FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-10-2010, 10:53 AM
Till Maas
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:25:06PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>
> > On 9 March 2010 21:54, Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> ===================================
> >> #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-03-09)
> >> ===================================
> >>
> >>
> >> Meeting started by nirik at 20:00:01 UTC. The full logs are available at
> >> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-03-09/fesco.2010-03-09-20.00.log.html
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Wow. That has to be the most depressing and apalling read ever -
> > seeing FESCo, the steering committee of a project which has done so
> > much good and made so much progress, tear strips off each other like
> > that. If FESCo is this dysfunctional, I really think there's a problem
> > larger than the number of regressions in our updates. FESCo, you
> > really need to start working together, you're presently not doing the
> > job you were elected to do.
>
> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
> meeting.
>
> Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it?

IMHO the whole discussion lacks "scientific methods" or common sense,
e.g. there are no hard facts presented about how each proposal would
influence the updates process. E.g. there are no numbers about how many
broken updates from testing to stable happend, how often updates are
directly pushed to stable, how many people to use updates-testing of
F11, F12 and F13? There are nearly no facts, so everyone is just
guessing and many people are just ignoring objections. E.g. several
proposals require a certain amount of karma, but nobody seems to care,
that packages do (did) not get that much comments. And instead of first
improving the amount of comments, before taking the next step, it's just
ignored. This improved with my script for F12 and F13, but the only
available metrics say that the overall amount of comments has increased,
but still it is unknown how many packages are how well covered.

Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 11:00 AM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 06:47:00AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> "We shouldn't be held hostage to various threats. We shouldn't be afraid to
> try something because a vocal few are ranting against it."
>
> I could, of course, be very wrong. However threatening to leave the project
> if various things aren't done exactly one's way isn't very respectful either.

I personnally think that both are ok. Since it is free software and
many people are benevolent, having people threaten to use their time
differently if something isn't done their way is ok, in my opinion,
since it is t e only credible threat for benevolent people to have an
effect on decisions. Voting is the other way, bt nothing beats a credible
threat.

At the same time accepting that people leave when they are not ok with
the outcome of decisions isn't more unfair. People in FESCo/FAB should
integrate the risk of having people leave against the risk of having
other people leave and against what user will do and their objectives.

--
Pat
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 11:08 AM
Till Maas
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 06:47:00AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:07:39AM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 20:25 -0500 schrieb Seth Vidal:
> >
> >> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
> >> meeting.
> >>
> >> Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it?
> >
> >Seth, respect would be a good starting point.
> >
> >> 20:45:30 <cwickert> I know there are people that will leave Fedora if
> >> we decide a policy that forbids major updates. both users and
> >> contributors
> >> 20:45:42 <skvidal> cwickert: people threatening to leave should leave
> >> 20:45:48 <skvidal> orphan your packages and go
> >> 20:45:57 <skvidal> I'll be glad to clean up that mess
>
> While the phrasing may or may not be over the top, I read that more as:
>
> "We shouldn't be held hostage to various threats. We shouldn't be afraid to
> try something because a vocal few are ranting against it."

Imho there is no evidence, whether these are few or many people that are
negatively affected by this.

> I could, of course, be very wrong. However threatening to leave the project
> if various things aren't done exactly one's way isn't very respectful either.

Afaics this does not affect some minor issue, but a fundamental reason
why package maintainer decided to become Fedora package maintainers.
No volunteer package maintainer is in general forced to create updates
and I am very sure that the volunteer package maintainers usually do not
create updates that they do not want to use. So if you forbid package
maintainers to package the version they want or need to use, being a
fedora package maintainer becomes pretty useless for them.

Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 11:38 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:47:00 -0500, Josh wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:07:39AM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 20:25 -0500 schrieb Seth Vidal:
> >
> >> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
> >> meeting.
> >>
> >> Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it?
> >
> >Seth, respect would be a good starting point.
> >
> >> 20:45:30 <cwickert> I know there are people that will leave Fedora if
> >> we decide a policy that forbids major updates. both users and
> >> contributors
> >> 20:45:42 <skvidal> cwickert: people threatening to leave should leave
> >> 20:45:48 <skvidal> orphan your packages and go
> >> 20:45:57 <skvidal> I'll be glad to clean up that mess
>
> While the phrasing may or may not be over the top, I read that more as:
>
> "We shouldn't be held hostage to various threats. We shouldn't be afraid to
> try something because a vocal few are ranting against it."
>
> I could, of course, be very wrong. However threatening to leave the project
> if various things aren't done exactly one's way isn't very respectful either.

I can agree with that last sentence in parts. Please don't forget the
order of incidents, however. First the early-warning system with hundreds
of messages and multiple threads, which made several packagers think "do
they want to ruin the community packaging project?", and several expressed
their criticism. *Afterwards* the more concrete proposals that ignored the
criticism and provoked further reactions from packagers, since it is only
natural that in project of volunteers that not everyone accepts the
inevitable. In return, the FESCo and FPB member quoted above has opted for
"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" tactics. With an additional blog
entry. And another one attempted at public humiliation even.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 11:50 AM
Seth Vidal
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Christoph Wickert wrote:

> Seth, respect would be a good starting point.
>
>> 20:45:30 <cwickert> I know there are people that will leave Fedora if
>> we decide a policy that forbids major updates. both users and
>> contributors
>> 20:45:42 <skvidal> cwickert: people threatening to leave should leave
>> 20:45:48 <skvidal> orphan your packages and go
>> 20:45:57 <skvidal> I'll be glad to clean up that mess
>

Do you like it when someone, who isn't getting their way threatens to take
their ball and go home?

I don't. I have two brothers and I learned a long time ago that if someone
gives you an ultimatum you ALWAYS TAKE IT. b/c they will try to hold it
over you forever and ever.


-sv

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 11:55 AM
Seth Vidal
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> I can agree with that last sentence in parts. Please don't forget the
> order of incidents, however. First the early-warning system with hundreds
> of messages and multiple threads, which made several packagers think "do
> they want to ruin the community packaging project?", and several expressed
> their criticism. *Afterwards* the more concrete proposals that ignored the
> criticism and provoked further reactions from packagers, since it is only
> natural that in project of volunteers that not everyone accepts the
> inevitable. In return, the FESCo and FPB member quoted above has opted for
> "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" tactics. With an additional blog
> entry. And another one attempted at public humiliation even.

Michael,

Do you really think you're attitude has been respectful and helpful
throughout all the time. Do you consider history at all?

You've generated a lot of bad blood and hostility over the years (as have
I). Do you think we all just forgot about it? You've used the "well, if
you aren't going to do it my way then I'll not play" option over and over
in my memory.

-sv


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 12:04 PM
Josh Boyer
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:38:09PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> >> 20:45:42 <skvidal> cwickert: people threatening to leave should leave
>> >> 20:45:48 <skvidal> orphan your packages and go
>> >> 20:45:57 <skvidal> I'll be glad to clean up that mess
>>
>> While the phrasing may or may not be over the top, I read that more as:
>>
>> "We shouldn't be held hostage to various threats. We shouldn't be afraid to
>> try something because a vocal few are ranting against it."
>>
>> I could, of course, be very wrong. However threatening to leave the project
>> if various things aren't done exactly one's way isn't very respectful either.
>
>I can agree with that last sentence in parts. Please don't forget the
>order of incidents, however. First the early-warning system with hundreds
>of messages and multiple threads, which made several packagers think "do
>they want to ruin the community packaging project?", and several expressed
>their criticism. *Afterwards* the more concrete proposals that ignored the
>criticism and provoked further reactions from packagers, since it is only
>natural that in project of volunteers that not everyone accepts the
>inevitable. In return, the FESCo and FPB member quoted above has opted for
>"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" tactics. With an additional blog
>entry. And another one attempted at public humiliation even.

Small correction: Seth is not on the Fedora Board.

josh
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 12:59 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:55:08 -0500 (EST), Seth wrote:

> Michael,
>
> Do you really think you're attitude has been respectful and helpful
> throughout all the time. Do you consider history at all?

It seems to be enough that you do. Whatever you may remember
correctly, I don't know what it is. You have never told me.

You take every opportunity to flame me for refusing to accept your offer
to commit to yum-utils/repoclosure, for example. With regard to that one,
you're unforgiving.

Another incident I remember is that I left two sysadmin* groups after
Dennis Gilmore had informed me about plans to strip them down and
access going away for me without any further notification. I do have
those mails on backup (March 2008 and later).

> You've generated a lot of bad blood and hostility over the years (as have
> I).

Wow. Disagreeing is not permitted? And still I've been loyal "over the years"
and have supported some decisions.

> Do you think we all just forgot about it?

Who is "we" here? Speak for yourself, please.

> You've used the "well, if you aren't going to do it my way then I'll
> not play" option over and over in my memory.

That must be an exaggeration.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 12:59 PM
Ewan Mac Mahon
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 07:50:25AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> Do you like it when someone, who isn't getting their way threatens to take
> their ball and go home?
>
There is a big difference between people threatening to take their ball
home if something happens that they don't like, and people criticising a
proposal on the basis that they think the technical impact of it will be
to make it no longer worth their while to maintain packages within
Fedora.

Many of the responses seem to be more the latter, and shouldn't be
simply written of as people throwing a strop.

Ewan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 01:51 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:59:56 +0000, Ewan wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 07:50:25AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> > Do you like it when someone, who isn't getting their way threatens to take
> > their ball and go home?
> >
> There is a big difference between people threatening to take their ball
> home if something happens that they don't like, and people criticising a
> proposal on the basis that they think the technical impact of it will be
> to make it no longer worth their while to maintain packages within
> Fedora.
>
> Many of the responses seem to be more the latter, and shouldn't be
> simply written of as people throwing a strop.

Well, in my case, I have explicitly referred to "dropping ownership of
further packages" after having given a rationale at least once. It wasn't
meant as a threat, because the packages and their bugfix updates would be
considered unimportant anyway by those people who would choose to confine
the packagers and their updates. The real threat was in the update policy
proposals.

It surprised me to see FESCo fight like that in a meeting. Some members
are beside themselves in rage. Steering is hard, let's go shopping.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:53 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org