Suppose Debian is to receive a similar letter of aggression, e.g.
"We IBM and Mozilla Foundation think that your duly elected project
leader is unworthy."

Wouldn't the only reasonable response to that be "mind your own business"?

Note that if we start discussing response and putting it out for GR then
we are DoS'ed successfully.

--
All the best,
Dmitry Smirnov
GPG key : 4096R/52B6BBD953968D1B

---

The end cannot justify the means for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced.
-- Aldous Huxley

---

And how long a lockdown is enough? If we open now, will lockdown recur in autumn? Next year? Whenever authoritarianism so wishes? No dictatorship
could imagine a better precedent for absolute control.
-- https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1924.long
:: BMJ 2020;369:m1924 "Should governments continue lockdown to slow the spread of covid-19?"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEULx8+TnSDCcqawZWUra72VOWjRsFAmBs42AACgkQUra72VOW jRtUBQ/5AZfiCKgdmhBFWeGQ/ExSrQkZ5TC7qRY5m9x8uT34PQF30kcQXOTOOKJF +d8L+9/zXiprmrFGTzSnbfkJPAd21dGak3c+H4G5U3g2TXfiVz7JZOu8QADVeKYY 3MHmk616RCRwgMyqMai0VrXEdlf6HQjpmlPLVJV1SkCvurOL2m+3jE5ljKxgDS+S rRq+8/sczIJZL4S2KQ6Rl+32ObNfOdDVYEyUFXflrsNx1iLFSw4T6bQw8QcUXm/n WXaaa8GtxyAjedoAX/eHorL3uoB5JQ9IwsN48ieAUV4wcaBczq4/5L/9JJ0bWtF9 DoXODui+W3eSBTZHetdquDZIWx/+1U0GiCiloZb7w4hBhrhvS7dH3rjeZrY1u5

Dmitry Smirnov <onlyjob@debian.org> writes:

Suppose Debian is to receive a similar letter of aggression, e.g. "We
IBM and Mozilla Foundation think that your duly elected project leader
is unworthy."

I would read the letter with great interest to try to understand why they
felt that way, and probably also talk to people outside of Debian as well
as people inside of Debian, people I trusted to be honest with me, to see
if they had similar feelings or concerns that they weren't raising because
they didn't think it would do any good, or were intimidated out of
raising, or otherwise didn't feel safe to raise.

At the end of the process, I might decide that I disagreed with some or
all of the letter or that the complaints were spurious or ill-founded, but (particularly if signed by organizations that I knew were unlikely to do
such a thing lightly) it would be worth spending some time thinking and analyzing and trying to understand and seeing if I had some blind spot,
and what would have led to them taking such a step.

Wouldn't the only reasonable response to that be "mind your own
business"?

No, for some reason I don't feel the need to react to sincere external criticism from serious organizations with knee-jerk hostility or dismissiveness.

Even if, after a thoughtful analysis, I completely disagreed with every
point of the substance of such a letter, the most productive way to deal
with such a letter is to calmly explain why it did not seem valid and then
go on with what one was going to do anyway. It's also a good opportunity
to ensure that one's governance processes are open, transparent, and functional, because there's always a possibility that I could disagree completely with such a letter *and be completely wrong*, and there needs
to be a usable path for one's opinion to be outvoted.

Note that if we start discussing response and putting it out for GR then
we are DoS'ed successfully.

Responding to serious concerns about the governance of a public benefit
project (which I would count Debian as, although we're not formally incorporated as such) is part of the work of that project and is a moral
and ethical obligation on the project. That doesn't mean *everyone* in
the project has any obligation to be involved, but it does mean that it's
a role the project should fill and take seriously.

Debian is, of course, a volunteer project. Therefore, if it's not
something you find interesting or useful, you're free (and encouraged!) to ignore that process and let those of us who are willing to do the work do
it.

PS: I would not consider such a letter to be "aggression against the
project" in any meaningful way, and thus also don't agree with the subject
line of this thread.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 7 April 2021 11:22:27 AM AEST Russ Allbery wrote:

PS: I would not consider such a letter to be "aggression against the
project" in any meaningful way, and thus also don't agree with the subject line of this thread.

In this case I'd say you are wrong.

Telling another project, on behalf of the entire organisation, that their leader is unworthy is an act of aggression because it implies that

* they need external advise in a form of petition (or worse)
* the project is unable to govern itself properly
* the people deserve the (bad) leader they've elected
* community that made bad decisions is out to be shamed
* leader himself is smeared with long list of accusations
* leader is beyond hope, worthy of no rebuttal or pardon

All of those implied messages are beyond criticism. I'd call it "passive aggressive" except that there is nothing "passive" in public accusations of impropriety, however politely they are expressed.

Here is the less hypothetical example: our current GR not merely calls
leader "unworthy" but calls for his resignation (choice 2), together with entire board of directors (choice 1), with refusal to cooperate until our demands are met (choice 3). An undeniable aggression.

--
All the best,
Dmitry Smirnov
GPG key : 4096R/52B6BBD953968D1B

---

The relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion. The law is
no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and
how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If
large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is
sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them.
-- George Orwell

---

COVID-19: Majority testing positive have no symptoms.
-- https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/july-august-2020/ignoring-the-covid-evidence/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEULx8+TnSDCcqawZWUra72VOWjRsFAmBvqaAACgkQUra72VOW jRvo9xAAkGTL4M3zF3pNaS8gy35FSFEqsNSqrBq3sjNJQgYe06GwONdYebMg36rU cUwgDXdORE2d/1ybghzhh86XtG8KU4sgi/SmckHESZL7Lv5DPBeEnRIELdLTm0qm +ynVnS4xuLNC8KUyrM/y866YTtxehVXYjSmqFHbBBAWyeDxqpLCO/v6l6puLfPHe Kt9607MjjcROVO6MDQmcjCUUo2NOuBjwxumD+7r5uVAbvTa0gkclAbenu0x+xPmL r4/sUjgXAq6lKEbql

Dmitry Smirnov <onlyjob@debian.org> writes:

On Wednesday, 7 April 2021 11:22:27 AM AEST Russ Allbery wrote:

PS: I would not consider such a letter to be "aggression against the
project" in any meaningful way, and thus also don't agree with the
subject line of this thread.

In this case I'd say you are wrong.

And you can express that opinion, and I can find your opinion unpersuasive
and decline to change my mind or actions on the basis of that opinion. Similarly, you can find my opinion unpersuasive and decline to change your
mind or actions.

If you don't feel that opinion is being taken seriously enough, you can
group together with other people to express that opinion collectively and
try to use your collective reputations to influence people's actions that
way. You could even work within the bylaws of an organization to issue a statement from that organization as a whole to try to give it more weight.
And of course I can continue to disagree with you and do all of the same
things with my opinion.

The fuzzy and imprecise but generally-used short-hand for this ongoing
process is "free speech." I hear it is vital to defeating communism.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)