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

[Soren Hansen]

On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 12:39:01AM +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote:
>> 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.
> 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 agree that if it was meant as a motivational speech, it failed
miserably, but it just so happens that is wasn't. 

> I also don't believe that it does anything "to keep the atmosphere
> calm and productive".

I'm sorry if I've needlessly heated the argument. I felt quite strongly
about the subject and have simply tried to convey that sentiment.

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

I'm not sure what to say about this at all. I've never been very good at
telling someone that I strongly disapprove of their conduct in a way
that made them feel happy and/or proud. If there are ways to do this,
I'd love to learn.

>> 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'm afraid my sarcasmometer is in the shop... Are you serious?

>> 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 don't think reverting reversions of reversions of reversions sounds
like a sound approach to development. I also don't see how it would
invalidate the analogy?

> 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.

I'm not trying to discuss the technical merits of anything. In fact, I'm
trying hard not to, but I realise I've failed a few times in this
thread.

>>> 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. 

So? Because I'm a member of the MOTU council, I don't get to have an
individual opinion?

> Even if this were not the case actually *noone* complained at all,
> which I do think was some justification to proceed with the matter.

This is all academic now, but had I seen the e-mail in the 1½ day window
of opportunity, I'm not even sure I'd have interjected at that point.
For instance, the e-mail didn't really invite outside opinions.  To me,
that suggests that you'd discuss it among yourself and then leave a bit
of time afterwards for objections.

>>> 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.

The point is that I think what you did also was stepping on someone's
toes, and seemed somehow appropriate that you knew what it feels like.

> 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.

As do I. I just don't think that putting a big "WRONG!" stamp on
someone's work by just reverting it is a very useful way to do so.  I
think a much, much more useful approach would have been to for example
tell Mathias that his changes were unacceptable, why that was the case,
and then give him a deadline for coming up with an alternative solution,
and only if the deadline was reached without a useful resolution, you
could have reverted his change.

>> 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.

I sure hope that if I find myself in a similar situation at some point,
a simple summary such as "he didn't seem interested in my alternatives"
won't count as my having been heard by the motu-release team.

> My announcement contained that Lucas was also contacted.

Well, Lucas had already made his position quite clear, I think.

-- 
Soren Hansen               | 
Virtualisation specialist  | Ubuntu Server Team
Canonical Ltd.             | http://www.ubuntu.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/attachments/20080909/42159708/attachment.pgp