On 16/02/18 10:04, Richard Brown wrote:

Unilaterally submitting lash over the wishes of both Ismail and Tomas is likely to be seen in any further arbitration as inconsistent with the Project's guiding principles.

As a contributor to the openSUSE Project, you have a responsibility to respect the wishes of Ismail and Tomas, even if you disagree with them.

Please reconsider this course of action, as I cannot see how it can possibly result in a positive outcome for yourself.

From this I assume that these two people are in charge of multimedia. I have selflessly given my time to openSUSE for 9+ years and I have come to the conclusion that it isn't appreciated and my experienced opinion isn't respected. The work that I do is time consuming and this issue is time consuming. I will notify the factory list of the packages which I can no longer maintain and cease to take part in this distribution. Further I've also accidentally slandered Tomas, I apologise for this. I've added the factory list to this email and I will paste the full text of this email exchange to this mail. Thank you for your time. Dave Plater On 15/02/18 18:33, Richard Brown wrote:

On 15 February 2018 at 16:59, Dave Plater <dplater.list@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip for confidentiality>

Hi David,

Thanks for your feedback. I have personally spoken to both Tomas, Dominique and Ismail (benefit of sharing a work building with Ismail).

Ismail assures me that he isn't intimidated by Tomas. Ismail wholeheartedly agrees with Tomas' delete request. Ismail believes that openSUSE should not be a collection of old unmaintained software.

openSUSE isn't a collection of old unmaintained software.

Lash 0.5.4 is obsolete, but replacing it with 0.6.0 as you propose is no better - it too is over 9 years old and is totally unmaintained. Both Tomas and Ismail feel that lash of any version has no place in any current openSUSE distribution.

What is the reason, is it a security risk, does it have bugs against it. Version 0.6.0 appears to remove at least one of the patches in place so far but if there is no security or functionality issue I can't understand the urgency for the removal of this package. I'm going to submit version 0.6.0, which will automatically remove the delete request and then I will create and submit ladish to factory and I will fix the dependency issue and delete request lash. This is the correct way of keeping a stable system. There are a few packages in lash's dependency list that need review for deletion as well.

This would be consistant with the form and function of both openSUSE Tumbleweed and openSUSE Leap 15 - where we probably don't want to support a piece of dead software for the next 5 years. As Tomas has pointed out, both Debian and Fedora have removed lash. This seems to be a very helpful checksum to confirm that is unfeasible for openSUSE to continue maintaining such obsolete software.

That said, Dominique accurately lists the current dependson which will be impacted by this. Dominique will not allow the change to reach Tumbleweed until that list is zero.

Therefore, collectively, as maintainers of a devel project which is proposing a disruptive change, it is your collective responsibility to decide how you deal with that.

I suspect Ismail and Tomas wish to take the approach of either removing the dependency on lash from impacted packages, or removing impacted packages if that is not feasible.

Hopefully in the correct way with discussion. This brings to mind another issue with Tomas: There have been a few submissions by potential new openSUSE maintainers, my method in this case, is to comment the request to the submitter as to what he must do to fix the package and bring it up to our standard. There have been a few occasions when I have been involved in these discussions where Tomas has simply butted in and rejected the request. This doesn't go down well with the possible future contributor to openSUSE and is very discouraging.

I believe you could help them with that endeavour, and I believe they'll be willing to accept your help.

In the future, I am confident that both Tomas and Ismail will take care to give some time for others when reviewing SR's to devel projects. However, I believe the Devel Projects in question do not have any established rules regarding review quorums, so you should respect the fact that it is possible that submissions can be accepted by other contributors like Tomas or Ismail, and it's entirely possible they will feel authoritative on such packages.

If you want to declare yourself authoritative on some packages, you should make sure you are marked appropriately in OBS so your co-maintainers in the devel project can be aware exactly which packages you directly care about. In return, you should be sure to actively review requests against such packages in a timely manner, especially if/when those packages are broken.

If this is going to be a repeated problem for you all, then I feel it apt to suggest that you collectively consider imposing stricter review rules, such as those followed by some GNOME: projects, which require a Devel project SR to go through an active 'review' before it can be accepted.

When you open a submit request to a package which has a particular maintainer the web ui clearly shows: "You are a project maintainer but not a package maintainer. This package has 1 package maintainer assigned. Please keep in mind that also package maintainers would like to review this request." but I see a bug on the command line there is no indication. This is possibly why the comments have been ignored. I will open a bug report.

This of course will dramatically slow down the velocity at which the devel project can move, which can be problematic if you need to get fast moving changes into the distributions.

You should probably discuss the best strategies for dealing with this and aim to find an equilibrium you are all happy with. Or at least one that still succeeds in avoiding flamewars on

opensuse-factory@

Dave, does this email address your concerns, and are you in a position to constructively move forward from this situation?

Regards,

Richard Brown openSUSE Chairman

What you are stating is that Tomas is able to make unilateral decisions as to what happens in openSUSE, in this case it is no longer a community distribution. This definitely warrants public discussion. Further it is negligent to delete a package without first finding out what depends on that package. If you follow the comments on sr#576999 you will see that this appears to be the case. You will also see that there is a substitute package ladish : https://github.com/LADI/ladish This package should have been created and submitted to Factory first and the dependents of lash modified to use it. For an example of how this should be done you can go back in history and see how I replaced the unmaintained package freebob which provided firewire to jack with ffado. Lash is indeed related to jack an important package which I maintain. I contribute an extensive part of my time because I feel that I am a part of something important. Unilateral decisions which harm the distribution and create unnecessary work are wrong. There is a procedure to be followed. First you check which packages are affected and you make the intention to delete the package known preferably on the Factory or at least the packaging list. A delete request should wait for at least three days before the review is accepted. In the past this is how it was and this has been discussed on the packaging list before. Regards Dave Plater On 15/02/18 18:33, Richard Brown wrote:

On 15 February 2018 at 16:59, Dave Plater <dplater.list@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip for confidentiality>

Hi David,

Thanks for your feedback. I have personally spoken to both Tomas, Dominique and Ismail (benefit of sharing a work building with Ismail).

Ismail assures me that he isn't intimidated by Tomas. Ismail wholeheartedly agrees with Tomas' delete request. Ismail believes that openSUSE should not be a collection of old unmaintained software.

openSUSE isn't a collection of old unmaintained software.

Lash 0.5.4 is obsolete, but replacing it with 0.6.0 as you propose is no better - it too is over 9 years old and is totally unmaintained. Both Tomas and Ismail feel that lash of any version has no place in any current openSUSE distribution.

What is the reason, is it a security risk, does it have bugs against it. Version 0.6.0 appears to remove at least one of the patches in place so far but if there is no security or functionality issue I can't understand the urgency for the removal of this package. I'm going to submit version 0.6.0, which will automatically remove the delete request and then I will create and submit ladish to factory and I will fix the dependency issue and delete request lash. This is the correct way of keeping a stable system. There are a few packages in lash's dependency list that need review for deletion as well.

This would be consistant with the form and function of both openSUSE Tumbleweed and openSUSE Leap 15 - where we probably don't want to support a piece of dead software for the next 5 years. As Tomas has pointed out, both Debian and Fedora have removed lash. This seems to be a very helpful checksum to confirm that is unfeasible for openSUSE to continue maintaining such obsolete software.

That said, Dominique accurately lists the current dependson which will be impacted by this. Dominique will not allow the change to reach Tumbleweed until that list is zero.

Therefore, collectively, as maintainers of a devel project which is proposing a disruptive change, it is your collective responsibility to decide how you deal with that.

I suspect Ismail and Tomas wish to take the approach of either removing the dependency on lash from impacted packages, or removing impacted packages if that is not feasible.

Hopefully in the correct way with discussion. This brings to mind another issue with Tomas: There have been a few submissions by potential new openSUSE maintainers, my method in this case, is to comment the request to the submitter as to what he must do to fix the package and bring it up to our standard. There have been a few occasions when I have been involved in these discussions where Tomas has simply butted in and rejected the request. This doesn't go down well with the possible future contributor to openSUSE and is very discouraging.

I believe you could help them with that endeavour, and I believe they'll be willing to accept your help.

In the future, I am confident that both Tomas and Ismail will take care to give some time for others when reviewing SR's to devel projects. However, I believe the Devel Projects in question do not have any established rules regarding review quorums, so you should respect the fact that it is possible that submissions can be accepted by other contributors like Tomas or Ismail, and it's entirely possible they will feel authoritative on such packages.

If you want to declare yourself authoritative on some packages, you should make sure you are marked appropriately in OBS so your co-maintainers in the devel project can be aware exactly which packages you directly care about. In return, you should be sure to actively review requests against such packages in a timely manner, especially if/when those packages are broken.

If this is going to be a repeated problem for you all, then I feel it apt to suggest that you collectively consider imposing stricter review rules, such as those followed by some GNOME: projects, which require a Devel project SR to go through an active 'review' before it can be accepted.

When you open a submit request to a package which has a particular maintainer the web ui clearly shows: "You are a project maintainer but not a package maintainer. This package has 1 package maintainer assigned. Please keep in mind that also package maintainers would like to review this request." but I see a bug on the command line there is no indication. This is possibly why the comments have been ignored. I will open a bug report.

This of course will dramatically slow down the velocity at which the devel project can move, which can be problematic if you need to get fast moving changes into the distributions.

You should probably discuss the best strategies for dealing with this and aim to find an equilibrium you are all happy with. Or at least one that still succeeds in avoiding flamewars on

opensuse-factory@

Dave, does this email address your concerns, and are you in a position to constructively move forward from this situation?

Regards,

Richard Brown openSUSE Chairman

What you are stating is that Tomas is able to make unilateral decisions as to what happens in openSUSE, in this case it is no longer a community distribution. This definitely warrants public discussion. Further it is negligent to delete a package without first finding out what depends on that package. If you follow the comments on sr#576999 you will see that this appears to be the case. You will also see that there is a substitute package ladish : https://github.com/LADI/ladish This package should have been created and submitted to Factory first and the dependents of lash modified to use it. For an example of how this should be done you can go back in history and see how I replaced the unmaintained package freebob which provided firewire to jack with ffado. Lash is indeed related to jack an important package which I maintain. I contribute an extensive part of my time because I feel that I am a part of something important. Unilateral decisions which harm the distribution and create unnecessary work are wrong. There is a procedure to be followed. First you check which packages are affected and you make the intention to delete the package known preferably on the Factory or at least the packaging list. A delete request should wait for at least three days before the review is accepted. In the past this is how it was and this has been discussed on the packaging list before. Regards Dave Plater -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org