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

[Stefan Potyra]

Hi,

On Monday 08 September 2008 16:37:09 Soren Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 02:44:12PM +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote:
> >> Each individual MOTU has the right to upload any package in universe.
> >
> > Actually any core-dev as well...
>
> Of course. I consider core-dev a subset of MOTU.
>
> > so a natural choice to announce plans for a reversion seem to be
> > either ubuntu-devel at l.u.c or ubuntu-motu at l.u.c or both.
> >
> > Exactly this was my first step. So...
>
> Are you referring to the e-mail you sent out half an hour before the
> upload or the post in the thread Lucas started only just the day
> before?

The email in which I changed the topic to make the announcement clear, sent 
inside the thread started by Lucas.

>
> >> However, there's no precedent for upload duels, and doing an upload
> >> that reverts the changes of fellow MOTU would be considered very bad
> >> manners indeed. If a situation arises where someone feels this is
> >> necessary, I'd expect them to raise the issue with the proper bodies
> >> of authority.
> >> This is *not* what happened in this situation.
> >
> > This is *exactly* what happened in this situation!
>
> Please quote me correctly. You left out "Each individual MOTU has the
> right to upload any package in universe.", which contains an important
> point.  There's a *huge* difference between an individual developer
> taking these steps, and an elected group of people taking the same
> steps. One is rude, the other is rude *and* bullying.

Personally, I don't think there's a huge difference, but sorry that I quoted 
you wrong.

Being in a team titulated as "rude and bullying" certainly doesn't motivate me 
to care for intrepid's release and Ubuntu as a whole but rather achieves the 
opposite though. I also don't believe that it does anything "to keep the 
atmosphere calm and productive".

And finally, having done the administrative parts in this issue, I do feel 
personally insulted when you name motu-release "rude and bullying".

>
> >> In this situation, a body elected under one set of rules,
> >> autonomously decides that is has additional authority, and trumphs a
> >> MOTU's changes and reverts them.
> >
> > I've not found a single mail in my inbox questioning wether
> > motu-release would have the authority after announcing that
> > motu-release would be considering a reversion.
>
> The tone with which Lucas started the thread didn't really suggest that
> it was going to be the most constructive thread in the world, so it
> didn't really seem like a thread I wanted to monitor very closely. So
> next time:
>
> 	Inside of unconstructive, heated threads is not a very good place to
> 	make announcements. In fact, inside of existing threads of any sort
> 	is a bad place to make announcements.

Maybe you'd like to make such an announcement in a better place yourself?

>
> I for one don't think a day and a half is ample time to wait for input
> on a subject such as this.
>
> Also, as I said to ScottK earlier in this thread:
>
> 	You realise that the time for appeals is usually *after*
> 	deliberation and ruling and *before* execution of sentence, right?

Ok, since I didn't comment on this yet: Your analogy is flawed. It's not a 
problem to reverse the reversion. I'd personally be the last to complain if 
it's done on a technical decision coming from motu-council (or as seems to be 
the case right now, to emerge from possible technical solutions being 
discussed and hopefully finally the best getting implemented). This email 
however shows not any doubt about the technical bits of the motu-release 
decision.

>
> > You've had the chance to complain, but failed to do so, and now
> > *afterwards* start to pick at motu-release.
>
> Well, excuse me for taking *one* day off from work. Are you seriously
> suggesting that becaause I'm not around to read every little bit of
> discussion on every mailing list and react immediately that robs me my
> right to do so?

Well, I assume that at least one member of motu-council does read the 
development related mailing lists every day. Even if this were not the case 
actually *noone* complained at all, which I do think was some justification to 
proceed with the matter.

>
> > Sorry, but that's highly bad manners in my opinion, and I do feel
> > mightily stepped on my feet by this!
>
> I really don't see why, but at least now you know what it feels like.

Can you elaborate on "but at least now you know what if feels like?". I'm not 
sure what you want to achieve with that sentiment.

To be clear about why I feel personally stepped on the feet:
I did put a lot of effort into the issue personally: I wanted to have a clear 
picture about the original problem myself, so I did research the grounds for 
libgems-ruby, which meant reading past emails to this topic, reading irc-logs, 
reading bugs. I did take part in the debate about the topic in length within 
motu-release. I did draft an answer which should both reflect the outcome of 
the motu-release discussion, but also shouldn't blame anyone (maybe I failed 
at this part though, but at least I tried) and finally I did revert the 
change. 
None of this was particular fun for me to do, but rather s.th. which I thought 
that should be done.

Personally, I do believe that it's much better to actually take initiative to 
correct s.th. wrong rather than to just complain about it. In case it's not 
clear yet, from my personal reply to my own announcement of the motu-release 
discussion: I don't have any doubts, that Mathias did the upload with good 
intent, and I don't blame him from doing the actual upload. The real issue is 
imho that the upload was done in a haste before FF, which means that probably 
our FF guidelines have their own fault (which however I have no clue how to 
solve). It was imho even a very good thing to start on *working* towards 
making libgems-ruby better in the first place, it's imho just a pity that it 
went quite wrong in technical regards.

>
> I find it particularly mindboggling that while you did this at least in
> part because Mathias didn't take some of the input he got into
> consideration, and even say that "motu-release unambigously encourages
> [seeking advice of other]" you didn't even bother asking for *any* input
> even from Mathias (as far as I can tell, at least).  That's a poor way
> to set an example, IMO.

Within this thread, Scott stated that he discussed the matter with Mathias on 
irc at length.
My announcement contained that Lucas was also contacted.

Cheers,
    Stefan.