Re: Security patching and the branching workflow: a new security-updates branch

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Hi Léo,

> Hello Ludo,
>
> On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 23:29 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> It’s unacceptable to call someone “obsessed” just because you
>> disagree
>> and calling Simon’s comments “harassment” is equally inappropriate.
>
> I really do feel harassed by their comments, it's not just because I
> disagree, it's that I feel they have been following me around in
> several of my contributions repeating the same issues, I have heard
> their criticism and I do disagree but I don't feel like bringing it up
> over and over and over following me around is a great thing to do at
> all!

I don’t doubt it feels this way for you, but I seriously doubt Simon
follows you around and responds to your emails to cause a stink.

Since a couple of months Simon has been doing invaluable work to tie up
loose ends in bug reports and mailing list discussions; thanks to this
tireless work many stalled projects have been able to move forward.
Applying the same strategy to finding consensus and establishing the
lack of consensus in fresh discussions is very valuable, in my opinion.

You started quite a few discussions with lots of recommendations and
some controversial points; I think it is obvious that this leads to a
discussion of these points, including the unavoidable discussion of
misunderstandings (which can be pretty frustrating for all involved).

For what it’s worth, I agree with the points made by Leo Famulari,
Ludovic, and Simon.  I don’t think we should have a security-updates
branch, because the role of that branch is effectively taken by staging.

>> We’re all passionate about the project, and each one of us looks at
>> it
>> from a different angle.
>> 
>> You’re new to the project.  I think we’re all glad you joined; that
>> has
>> already boosted security work and the POWER9 port.  But we also have
>> expectations: that you follow written rules (the code of conduct, the
>> “Commit Access” section of the manual), and the unwritten rule that,
>> as
>> a newcomer, you would humbly listen to suggestions made by more
>> experienced contributors.
>
> I try to listen, and I think I have listened to criticism from many
> different people. I think we've reached a point where I could not
> listen anymore from Zimoun because I felt we were going in circles.

That’s fine.  We have no deadlines, so stepping back from what feels
like a heated discussion for a while and revisiting the points later
comes at very little cost.

Obviously, you don’t *have* to accept other people’s criticism.  But we
collectively aim to act in a collegial fashion, finding consensus before
forging ahead with changes to processes.  I have not been convinced by
your arguments and your appeals in this discussion.  I can’t speak for
others, but I would consider it very unwise to ignore the lack of
consensus and just start a new branch when that isn’t what the
collective of long-term contributors agrees to do. 

If that’s not what you’re planning to do then my comments carry no
weight.  I do want to stress, though, that hurry is usually misplaced in
the decision-making process of this project.  There are only few
exceptions to this and none warrant precipitating a falling-out.

-- 
Ricardo