Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Call for moderation and mediation: debian-live vs. debian-live-ng

On 2015-11-12 03:07, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Tiago Bortoletto Vaz [2015-11-11 20:17 -0500]:
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 07:29:57PM +0000, Neil McGovern wrote:
>>> If people want, I can draw up a statement on what the project's view of
>>> the issue is - it woudn't be impartial though, just as Daniel's view is
>>> not.
>> But, my impression here in
>> private is that we're reducing the problem on 'external users who don't
>> know a bit of what's really going on' vs 'internal members who're the
>> reasonable voices because they know something that those users are not
>> aware of'. If it's the case, Debian is doing a disservice for the
>> community on hiding the real issue. And even worst by trying to fix an
>> old internal war in such a terrible manner.
> Agreed. I've been around a long time, but I didn't know what on earth
> was going on until Steve's message here explained it. Without that
> knowledge it looks pretty bad.

Indeed. I had zero knowledge of the history between Daniel and the
project, so going just by the initial public information, it appeared to
me as if this new approach
  * attempted to hijack the live-* namespace
  * did not seek collaboration from the existing live-* contributor
  * did not even give the existing live-* contributor a fair warning
    about its imminent deprecation
  * did not thank the existing live-* contributor for his initiative,
    and many years of contributions
  * went so far as to discredit the existing live-* project entirely
    (WRT the claim that "live-build is not a Debian project [...]",
    which, even if perhaps formally true, )
  * leaves a number of other questions opened (eg: if there was time
    for a vmdebootstrap sprint, why wasn't there time for a live-build
    bug squashing that seems to have been the show-stopper for it)

I really appreciate Iain's public follow-up, which I felt used a much
better tone, and which addressed a few of the issues above.

And from the information presented here in -private, it is now clear to
me that the drivers behind this new initiative were indeed acting in
good faith, and had objective reasons for taking the path they chose.

However, I want to note that from the public view, some of these issues
still remain. I believe that without sharing at least some of the
context, these issues (and others I might have overlooked) will continue
to be perceived as hostile, and as such, will negatively reflect on the


> What's so hard about sending that message, somewhat edited for public
> consumption (and then remembering to show the same restraint in not
> rising to replies that has been commendably displayed so far if there
> is more grumbling)? 
> (nothing private here)
> Wookey

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index