Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (202 mails)

[Jos Poortvliet <jos@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday 15 June 2011 19:20:55 Per Jessen wrote:
> Jos Poortvliet wrote:
> > On Wednesday 15 June 2011 14:04:57 Per Jessen wrote:
> > > Jos Poortvliet wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 15 June 2011 09:08:20 Per Jessen wrote:
> > > > > Alberto Passalacqua wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > Sorry, that's apparently how the openSUSE community works - if
> > > > > we're not
> > > > > happy with it, it's up to us to change it.  And I don't think it's
> > > > > better done by not discussing changes at all.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure that is not what Alberto meant.
> > > >
> > > > I wonder what the value of this meta-discussion is. I don't see how
> > > > we have to ask for discussion?
> > > >
> > > > The maintainers of systemd and the maintainers of sysvinit want to
> > > > have systemd. That's quite clear. Nobody has stepped up with an
> > > > alternative proposal and offered to do better. So the decision has
> > > > been made implicitly by those who do the work. That is how a FOSS
> > > > community works.
> > >
> > > Every now and then I see references to "Product Management" - don't
> > > they have a say?
> >
> > Not over openSUSE, no.
>
> Okay, I was not aware we had progressed so far. Can I quote you?

Sure. I'm being a bit black and white here, AJ (who is Product Manager for 
openSUSE) probably could influence what SUSE employees want. But they can't 
dicatate what happens in openSUSE other than by doing the work - which puts 
them on equal foot with others doing work. And obviously way above people who 
just talk and talk (but that's how it should be, right?).

> > > Certainly. Maybe we should have said "deliberation" instead, as I
> > > think Guido Berhoerster also did initially.
> >
> > Deliberation suggests the people involved haven't thought about it
>
> Not really, but I won't bore you with explaining it.  Google is your
> friend.
>
> > and I think that is not a fair assesment. Really, if anyone has
> > objections, he/she should bring them up. In absense of those it makes
> > sense to trust the experts, don't you think?
>
> (please stop being condescending, it doesn't suit you).
> No, I don't think so.  It doesn't always make sense to leave decision
> making to the experts.  In particular when it comes to controversial or
> non-trivial decisions, I think it makes sense to ask the experts to
> deliberate with the community first.  Not seek a consensus, just inform
> people about pros and cons and whys and hows.  Like I suggested to Greg
> KH, developers (and experts) often live in ivory towers, blissfully
> unaware.  This does not, imho, make them qualified to make decisions
> for the greater good.

I think Grek and Robert have answered this better than I could.

I also talked about this in my blog, which I pointed you to before. A 
convenient link for you:
http://bit.ly/lZu4fT

BTW the discussion in public that Guido asked for is happening, or rather, it 
was until it got derailed in this silly meta discussion.

Reading through the tread again, Guido has concerns which were being 
addressed. In the end, maybe the problems he mentions can be solved. Maybe not 
and in that case, the release team makes the decision. If they (ok, it's just 
Coolo right now) don't feel comfortable with that they can ask the Board.
See:
http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Factory_development_model

This is a complicated issue and it is OK and understandable that some people 
have concerns. We discuss them, that is how it should be and that is how 
decisions are made.

Let's please stop the meta-discussion about having discussions, it gets us 
nowhere. If Guido and others feel systemd is problematic, they should try to 
come up with an alternative solution. If they can't it's a choice between an 
arguably bad thing and nothing - no choice at all... It sucks but that is how 
it is.