Bug#727708: Removal of Ian Jackson from TC

To: Friedrich Gunter <friedrich.gunter@aim.com>

Cc: 727708@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#727708: Removal of Ian Jackson from TC

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 12:51:10 -0800

Message-id: <87d2iwhuwx.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Reply-to: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>, 727708@bugs.debian.org

In-reply-to: <8D0F3EBE09DD1F8-9A4-14176@webmail-d279.sysops.aol.com> (Friedrich Gunter's message of "Sun, 9 Feb 2014 15:23:07 -0500 (EST)")

References: <8D0F3EBE09DD1F8-9A4-14176@webmail-d279.sysops.aol.com>

Friedrich Gunter <friedrich.gunter@aim.com> writes: > Hello TC, > I hereby request that you begin the procedure for removing Ian Jackson > from his position in the TC. He has consistently derailed debates, engaged > in dishonest tactical voting methods, and tarnished the good reputation of > the TC. He is a nuisance to the Debian project and a dishonest man to > entrust with such responsibility. > I would further suggest that any similar calls to remove Bdale from his > post be ignored, as Bdale has been doing an excellent and honest job. Look, please, everyone just stop and breathe. No one is going to kick anyone off of the TC today. Not while passions are running high, and not while we're dealing with the fallout from a hard and extremely controversial vote. It's not even something we should be discussing right now. We're in unprecedented procedural territory here in multiple ways. We do not normally call for immediate votes, and we do not normally do so to prevent amendments. This is the first time I can recall that we had an unresolvable dispute over how to construct a ballot. Given that Ian had said that he intended to propose amendments for any minimal ballot, I don't see that Bdale had any possible procedural method to advocate a minimal ballot that would be effective apart from an immediate vote and ask that it be voted down with FD if the rest of the group disagrees. But it's still necessarily very confrontational. It's entirely understandable that Ian is angry. Please give him some space to be angry. I think we've all been there before. Ian has been passionately arguing what he considers to be both an ethical and design requirement for loose coupling and independently replacable components. I understand that a lot of other people disagree with his perspective here, but it's a valid and consistent perspective. This is a point about which people can reasonably disagree. Ian's job on this committee, like all of us, is to argue his perspective and to try to convince other people of his position. It's very hard to have deep disagreements with professional colleagues about what you consider to be foundational and ethical decisions. It can be both baffling and then very frustrating and infuriating when what you feel like are overwhelming arguments in favor of your position aren't considered important by other people. This stuff is hard in every way: socially, emotionally, and procedurally. Please give people the space to be angry, disappointed, frustrated, and in total disagreement with both process and outcome. We have a process, and we're following it as best as we all collectively can given a lot of deeply conflicting goals and opinions. One of the points of a process is to force some distance and emotional separation. It does not help *anyone* to push for further confrontation right now. -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>