motu-release will revert libgems-ruby to the old state.

[Scott Kitterman]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 17:40:32 +0200 Soren Hansen <soren at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:08:02PM +0900, Emmet Hikory wrote:
>> [...] Mathias is in agreement that MOTU Release has the authority to
>> supercede uploads that may be considered inappropriate for a release.
>
>Well, I'm not sure I am. The closest to a charter for MOTU-release I
>could find is https://edge.launchpad.net/~motu-release that says:
>
>   This team takes care of approving and denying Feature Freeze
>   exceptions for Universe and Multiverse.
>
>I don't see how reverting technical decisions done by fellow MOTU's
>falls under this authority.
>
>While every MOTU has the power to revert any other MOTU's changes, a)
>it's bad manners, and b) it's something entirely different if it's a
>team that invents its own authority to trumph "a lowly MOTU"'s upload.
>
>I'm happy to engage in a discussion as to whether motu-release *should*
>have this authority. In fact, I'm inclined to think that they should.
>I'm simply pointing out that they currently do *not*.

I have my opinion on it, but certainly if MC produces a contrary judgement, 
I'll accept it.

>> Separately, I would like to personally encourage all developers to
>> [...] and request to MOTU Release to consider the option of a longer
>> discussion period prior to superceding an upload except in cases where
>> such a delay may adversely impact some specific release milestone.
>
>I'd like to also stress this very thoroughly.

Personally, I believe delay would have been problematic in this case.

>I strongly disapprove of motu-release's conduct in this matter, but done
>is done, and I'm not going to revert their reversion by uploading yet
>another gems package to do something that I think is better, shinier, or
>whatever. I will just be very disappointed if motu-release again decides
>that it has authority to carry out a maneuver like this, and to make
>matters worse, doesn't leave any time at all for appeal.

I don't intend to engage in an extended debate on this, but there are a few 
points I'd like to make.

The initial upload came in, what appeared to me to be, the middle of a 
discussion about the desirability of this change.  My recollection (I'm 
typing this on my phone, so I don't have effective access to references) is 
that one of the proponents of this change suggested that he thought we 
could all agree the proposed approach was an improvement in the then 
current situation.  I disagreed and said I thought it was not.  The next 
word was that it had been uploaded.

After the upload I discussed it with Mathiaz on IRC for~75 minutes trying 
to see if there was any alternative way that he was willing to consider 
that would meet some of his objectives, but mitigate the concerns that 
people had expressed.  It was my judgement that he was unwilling to 
consider alternatives and so my choices were to accept his pre-emptive 
upload, revert it, or invest substantial time on my own (as a volunteer) to 
develop an alternative.  The conversation was on#ubuntu-server and I 
presume is available in the IRC logs.

I wasn't going to be able to re-engineer his solution in my available time 
and I did not believe that the upload was technically sound (as I've 
detailed elsewhere and won't repeat).  I could have, and did consider, 
reverting the upload on my own.  I consider it the responsibility of any 
MOTU to fix broken things in the archive.  I decided not to proceed on my 
own for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the risk of a 
series of tit for tat uploads.

I considered options and it seemed to me that as the only Universe oriented 
technical oversight group we have for Ubuntu development, that motu-release 
was the most appropriate group to review the situation.  It seemed more 
Ubuntu to let a group review the situation than to just act.

I think that after I posted to the ML that I objected to the upload and 
asked for reasons it shouldn't be reverted, during my discussion with 
Mathiaz on IRC, and after sistpoty indicated motu-release was reviewing the 
situation, I believe there was ample opportunity for people to comment.

Finally, I think that leaving this upload in place for the time it would 
take for a tech board review of the situation would have been problematic.  
I believed that a rather immediate resolution was important (whichever way 
it went).

I'm still open to consider if there are some worthwhile improvements that 
can be achieved with reasonable risk for Intrepid.

More generally, I would suggest that if last minute pre-freeze uploads are 
not subject to any scrutiny and motu-release's ability to be interested in 
activites is determined to appear fully formed out of nowhere on FF day, it 
will only incentivize more rushed uploads at the last minute pre-FF.

Scott K

P.S. Just speaking for myself here.  Please keep in mind that TheMuso and 
sistpoty are currently on vacation.