[AGREEMENT] dachary application to the release team #176
Labels
No Label
Accessibility
Agreement proposal
Communication
Election
Entrustment
Governance
Meeting
[Decision] Building proposal(s)
[Decision] Gathering criteria
[Decision] Integrating concerns
No Milestone
No Assignees
7 Participants
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: forgejo/meta#176
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
There is no content yet.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may exist for a short time before cleaning up, in most cases it CANNOT be undone. Continue?
Application
I propose to be accountable for the Forgejo release and become part of the the release team.
This application follows the Forgejo decision making process.
Pledge
I pledge to publish Forgejo releases by following and improving the release process
I pledge to rebase Forgejo by following and improving the documented workflow
If there is an agreement for me to be a member of the team, I pledge to apply again a year later.
Background
I authored and maintained the release process, the rebase workflow and the soft-fork-tools.
I took care of all the rebase from the beginning of Forgejo as documented in the recurring issue and publishing all releasees up to v1.18.3.
In the past few weeks I began automating the tools and transferring my knowledge to other Forgejo contributors. That allowed @crystal to successfully publish v1.18.3-2 and @earl-warren to successfully rebase Forgejo 25 February 2023.
I created the initial scripted configuration based on @gapodo scripts took care of the upgrades on both https://forgejo-ci.codeberg.org and https://ci.dachary.org when bug fixes or diagnostics were necessary.
@circlebuilder publicly declared
in his capacity as interim member of the moderation teamthat I acted against the Code of Conduct. But he did not explain how, why or when.I think it is in reference to when I wrote the following message:The person I was writing to was banned from the Forgejo chatrooms the same day, for frequently disrupting communications, among other things.It is up to each Forgejo community member to decide if the message I sent indeed constitutes a violation of the Code of Conduct and if, as a consequence, it makes me unfit for fulfilling a role in the release team.
Update one: after posting this message: @circlebuilder informed me that, although this was not public knowledge at the time, he was no longer a member of the moderation team when he wrote the message in the chatroom.
Update two: in another message @circlebuilder clarified that he was not referring to the above message but to the way I approached him.
@dachary
This really can't wait until @circlebuilder availability? I find it a lack of consideration.
Of course, there is no rush: every Forgejo community member is welcome to express their opinion on my application on their own time.
FWIW @dachary I sent you an elaborate email yesterday at 10.34am CET which I also passed as hedgedoc pad in the DM you invited me in (around same time) and just before you popped out of it. I am dealing with personal matters still.
Personal matters come first, please take all the time you need. Do you want this agreement to be held until you are available to comment?
I wrote the above in the interest of full disclosure so Forgejo community members are aware of this issue because it matters when they consider whether or not I am a good fit for this role. I believe not mentioning it would have been deceptive on my part because it is a serious issue. If, as a Forgejo community member, I was to agree on a similar application and discover later on, by chance, that the person was involved in a violation of the Code of Conduct at the time of the application, I would feel deceived.
In the interest of transparency, I prefer to not engage in private conversations regarding this public matter. I believe it is beneficial for Forgejo community members to know they have all the information available to decide for themselves. It would otherwise be impossible for them to form an opinion. I fully understand that it means that a violation of the Code of Conduct on my part will be explained in public and I accept the consequences in advance.
I am all for seeing you in this position. As mentioned in my mail I hold you in high regard. At the time I informed the chatroom of our conflict, I had already stepped out of the Wellbeing team upon your urging in your DM and subsequently deferred to @Gusted and @fr33domlover to handle things.
Also I would like to point out that imho there are graduations to seriousness of not sticking to the nature and/or rules of the CoC. If two people who respect each other and work together for a long time have some kind of conflict, then it needs sorting out. These things happen in day-to-day work process. But that is wholly different than someone unknown starting to seriously misbehave.
I mentioned along this line the second time you invited me to a DM, but you left the chat after I had sent the comment. The comment also contained the link to the Hedgedoc I had drafted, and sent you as email afterwards. As mentioned in the mail, both @fr33domlover and @Gusted have a link to the pad.
Thank you for the vote of confidence.
I was not aware that your message was not written in your capacity as a member of the moderation team. Nor did anyone reading it from the chatroom logs since you're still advertised as a member of the moderation team. Could you please update TEAMS.md accordingly and maybe post a reply to your own message in the chatroom to clarify that?
The disagreement we have is a private matter (and the only private discussion we've had this year) and I do not feel comfortable discussing it in public. I hope you understand and I would appreciate if you could refrain from referring to it in public as well.
I will update the above message with this new information.
P.S. This is not a time sensitive topic and I understand you have more pressing personal matters to attend to. Please take all the time you need to answer this message.
The way you approached me privately is where I consider yours to be unacceptable behavior and in breach of the CoC. I am open to frank discussion in due time and I prefer that to happen with aforementioned people who are also already informed.
@crystal @earl-warren @fr33domlover since you 👍 my application I'd like you to know I added the following just now to my pledges:
This was discussed (and recorded) in the previous governance meeting. There is nothing in the governance about that just yet. But it makes a lot of sense to me so I just added it.
The general idea is that it is healthy for team members to periodically (but not too frequently) renew the trust the Forgejo community gave them. One year is a long time, relationships change, availability as well. It may be that a team member wants to amend their pledge. It may also be an opportunity for community members to discuss how things could be improved, a year later.
Please let me know if you have any concerns about that.
I am sorry to be posting OT on this thread, but I want to address the things you request of me:
The message in chat clearly informed the Forgejo main room asap, but Loic had already stepped out of the room:
I also proposed to step out of the room, so Loic would feel comfortable to step in again:
Anyway, this is a good time to point to the Welbeing issue Wellbeing-first policy and culture #172, which has the intention to avoid the off-topic discussion chains like this. But it would require good access point to get Wellbeing support and well-oiled procedures for handling incidents.
This is a big, ugly mess. It sheds poor light on the project and you keep bringing things up that @circlebuilder must attempt to address without betraying the confidence of privileged communications that would put anyone in an uncomfortable, even untenable position.
While he is literally dealing with dinner very difficult family issues. I find that to be somewhat insensitive and most certainly petty.
I personally find that very unkewl, especially because it's the simplest thing in the world for you to teach out to him and reduce this complication, whatever the heck it is, between the two of you instead of putting on something akin to a daytime TV soap opera presentation in thre midst of a bid to join a team that you don't need to be on anyway - after all, your either the or an Org Admin/Owner, so you can simply participate in the release process anyway, and I sincerely hope you do so for the benefit of the project regardless of the outcome.
But after what seems to me as an insignificant yet incredible urge on your part to raise issues of uncertainty with respect to @circlebuilder (One of the most esteemed members of this project), for reasons unclear to me and probably anyone else here except for perhaps @Gusted and @fr33domlover , well it isn't very pleasant.
Moreover, I rather think it needs to stay that way (in private) and the two of you really should seek intervention with those two members of the Well-Being team... In fact, I'm not just suggesting it, I'm urging you to do so with haste forthwith.
Maybe this isn't the right time for you to join the Release Team as an official member anyway. This kind of controversy is unbecoming.
Reading that you (for reasons I don't think I want to know) personally requested (?) That he resign from the Well-Being Team in the 'only' private interaction the two of you have had since the launch of this project? That runs odd. Again, you didn't need to push until this began to be aired publicly and it reeks of poor judgement IMO.
I don't usually bother even acknowledging these types of processes, yet I do skim over them, and this seems rather unsettling - especially now that I'm sensing what seems to appear to me as an emerging pattern. I won't try to define it as I see it here, but since this confirmation thread has already gravitated towards inharmonious territory, it's perhaps as good a place as any to share those observations. Beginning with why @onepict felt so compelled to tender her unexpected and immediate resignation, after what I can only now surmise was a rug pull, given what's going on in the above dialogue between you and Circlebuilder... I could be wrong, but it just feels to me like you've been picking on him lately.
If you would be so kind as to explain, in relative detail, the circumstances that led to onepict's abrupt resignation letter, from your point of view of course. I can provide you with a link to it at
archive.isif that would help, otherwise, feel free, if you don't mind.Let me restate here that I find you to be capable and competent in the working aspects of managing the continuous delivery portions of the business processes here. I can no longer express such confidence however, where the interpersonal skills are concerned.
There are other, as yet unresolved professional issues too IMO, where you're concerned, that may directly affect the Well-Being of the project as a whole until these items are satisfactorily broached.
We cannot afford the slightest appearsnces of impropriety here at Forĝejo - too many thousands of people and businesses depend upon the altruistc, selfless volunteer work we do here.
You were asked by a community member about offering specific declarations here, in the interest of keeping the welfare of the project itself in mind. Instead, you come back with asking why that should be (because you say you mentioned it somewhere), when it seems a reasonable enough request.
I didn't wish to make a big deal about having the company that pays you to work here, on behalf of them, for full time salary, but serious issues surrounding provenance of intellectual property are in question whenever anyone contributes code for any project while they are doing so on company time with a third party employer.
I actually explained why, in great real life detail here in issue 86, pointing out that we actually need a principal of Easter-Eggs to sign a Corporate Contributor Agreement anyway, perhaps even one of the principals from GNAas well (it can't hurt).
But now, even still, not a word from you on that matter.
With everything Forgejo that relates to intellectual property, we have to dot every "i" and cross every "t", as @Caesar was mindful of, and so kind as to do with the official Forgejo logo.
Perhaps this is partly related to the airing of dirty laundry that you keep bringing up here in public, about matters that are obviously bothering you left over from a private communication, where it might be construed that you're virtually demanding that the Well-Being team act upon your direction after you have already been removed from the team here in this instruction - a directive issued about the asset directly tied to the matter in the issue tracker item itself?
And I'm not sure if I should feel comfortable with contacts for the administration of grants awarded by NLnet being signed by you as an official representative of Easter-Eggs, might that it would appear as more appropriate if it were just you as a private individual, or representative of Forĝejo, or perhaps even if it was done by a representative of our Custodian (Codeberg)? I'm just wondering how that appears, if there's any appearance of commingling or issues with (again, respect to the provenance of) intellectual property, regardless of whether the expectations that such code will be directly integrated into Forĝejo as a bonafide part of the Forĝejo Project at this moment.
Three Governance meetings ago you gave me your personal assurances that there are indeed signed contracts between Forĝejo and Codeberg to insure the safe custodial haven we have here with them, as well as the ability for us at anytime we choose (if we do choose) to complete a legitimate legal self organization process for ourselves as a nonprofit in our own right and part on amicable terms (presumably with Otto being on our Board). I t took you at your word then, but perhaps it's best that I set an agenda item for our next meeting for you to present evidence of such extant artifacts.
And I just can't conceive of why you would issue a unilateral edict of your own accord that Forĝejo will not accept any form of monetization vehicles such as Liberapay, OpenCollective, etc.; when we are at risk of losing some of our very best developers who at this time are facing adverse circumstances if they forgo gainful employment elsewhere to remain with Forĝejo.
Finally, where your judgment is concerned, it didn't feel good seeing you bug out of the working effort for the current grant response without so much as any explanation in your sudden departure there. @crystal suggested yesterday that maybe @Ryuno-Ki should consider asking to be pushed back until April's round because today is the deadline that Michiel set for it. We really could have used at least the perception of your moral support, if nothing else. After all, your already drawing a full time salary to help out here.
Reluctantly, I'm not going to be able to recommend or endorse your bid to join the Release Team at this time. We will be better served if we continue to spread around such responsibilities so others can, and have been recently, build upon and gain confidence in many of the processes established hitherto.
Thst's not to say that I don't think you should pitch in and help, but you don't need to be in yet another team to do that, and you're currently well placed on the Security Team. I'm going to have to give your proposal a thumbs down at this juncture - but please don't take that personally, I still have otherwise a lot of confidence in your value here, but you were already on almost every single team before, and there are folks eager to step up for most of those positions of integrity now.
Thank you for this elaborate answer, @tallship.
Although off-topic, I want to reply to
First of all, I didn't receive an e-mail by Michiel about a deadline of 1st March.
Second, I replied three days ago
Third, we asked to be moved to the next round already.
I'd like to ask you to have following remarks on this in the respective issue. Thank you.
I want to clarify that this is not what I intended to suggest. I only wished for this message to necessarily be sent. Obviously @dachary took care of it despite not knowing about my messages.
At this time I would only suggest we all be open-minded and magnanimous in receiving feedback, and take our time to gradually bring in all the lessons-learned from recent experiences and turn them into project improvements.
Of course no one should withhold from continuing this wide-ranging conversation, but just consider there might be better time, place and opportunity that lead to better outcomes.
Keeping in mind @circlebuilder's comment above, I would like to explain my reasoning for supporting this proposal.
It is clear that @dachary is passionate about forge software as he has played an important role, not only in the Forgejo project since it's inception, but also in other forge projects over the years. The events of the past few days have been troubling for many of us, but I believe @dachary is very motivated to work on technical aspects of the project.
@dachary has also been responsible for the development of the current rebase and release processes, as well as the tools that simplify and automate the process. I believe it is in the best interest of the release team to have him on it until these tools and processes have reached a greater stage of maturity, and other members of the team have gained more familiarity with them.
Finally, I think the release team should have at least three active members. Currently there are only two other applications. Furthermore, even if another person were to apply, I would have no opposition to the team having four members. I think it is important that there are plenty of people who are familiar with the rebase and release processes. This will mean there are plenty of people who understand the workflow well enough to explain it to new contributors, and there should be at least someone available to prepare a release even if it must be done on short notice. I don't see @dachary's presence on the release team as taking the opportunity away from anyone else by any means at this stage.
I think the entire discussion in this issue distracts from the point of the proposal. I find @dachary to be a valuable member of the release team, and to be completely honest, I simply enjoy working with him. We're all human and sometimes make mistakes that hurt other people in unexpected ways. The Forgejo community depends on it's most respected members to be able to work together on a regular basis. As with any long-term social interaction, this is likely to lead to rising tensions on occasion. Where we can differentiate ourselves is by being willing to learn from our experiences and make amends in the interest of making the community stronger.
disclaimer; am mostly outsider and certainly not party to these discussions.
I found the start of this spat a bit weird: an accusation of violation of the code of conduct. I definitely understand the statement, and I can imagine what might have happened.
What is strange is that a CoC is not like a law that is violated and gets you in trouble with justice.
Instead a CoC is almost everywhere I contributed seen as a guideline, one that writes down things so people can be reminded when they overstep it and avoid discussions about said behavior (because its written down!).
As such observing someone breaking the code is simply a nod and a push to get someone to realize their bad behavior. Since that is almost always all that is needed for people to change their behavior.
Escalations go equally gradually, more people in positions of power start reminding the person doing it badly how they are breaking the CoC. Social pressure works, people.
So, my thinking here is that an accusation of breaking CoC is not something that makes sense on this voting issue. It makes no sense to even discuss it in public until its a pattern of misbehavior.
Just talk to each other, ok?
Thanks @zander, "Guideline" is the better word to what I tried to express above and in addition we have more input to #171 terminology to avoid.
Given the significant negative feedback on my application, I withdraw. Forgejo is a community led project and it is important that there is a consensus for someone to be trusted in a role, specially an important one such as publishing releases.
I will provide all the help to the members of the release team to make sure they have all they need to move forward.
Was that elsewhere?
There is no significant negative feedback on your application on this thread.
Just an unfortunate mixing of off-topic drama with the otherwise well supported application.
I should have clarified, sorry for being imprecise.
I'm referring to is (in chronological order):
This negative feedback is significant enough for me to withdraw. I understand some people think the violation of the CoC is off topic. I think differently, as explained here.
thanks for the clarification.
Using my comment which states the two issues are separated as critisism is.. missing the point entirely.
This is the second time in a month or so that I see you withdraw from an effort due to minor pushback from others in the community. This is not a good look and I won't put names on it, but I do think you should be less fragile and finish what you start. If you don't get the votes, then you learned. From withdrawal you learn nothing.
You should do these things because you believe you can make a difference. Stopping because some people don't share the exact same vision you do is not the way. Instead, build on those that support you and work to prove the doubters false.
With that said, a release team (application) is only very slightly going to be related to such personal issues, so don't take this as a downvote. It is not.
@zander you are right, my apologies for quoting you. I edited accordingly and although this is concluded it was not fair to assimilate your comment to negative feedback.
For the record here is what @circlebuilder wrote in the public chatroom today.
The quote above is only a partial extract from what I wrote. For the full comment with much more context see my full response on Forgejo chat.
Both of you can handle this better.
@circlebuilder you started so nice;
But then you felt the need to escalate in the same messag:
Dude, you don't like an interaction that didn't actually happen in any public room. It was a bad experience, I'm sure. But you are pooring fuel on the fire. Stop trying to be right, start trying to solve this.
@dachary
You get hung up on words so easy. So fast to get sad when someone says something bad.
If there are accusations (for instance regarding your position and your employer), it is on the accuser to provide proof. Without proof the accuser is the one that is being disrespectful. You can't defend yourself against a hand-waving accusation.
Don't get frustrated, stand up for yourself. Not in agression, but in calmness.
I just use the terminology that Loic uses again and again. Maybe you aren't in chat, but trying to solve this is what I have done from the start, on every ocassion. Don't worry, I am done with it now. My effort to resolve was made public in the chat. These interactions here, even yours now, aren't helpful either. Except the last word: Calmness :)
For the record, since I was explicitly mentioned.
My reaction was 👀 .
That's the neutral reaction as far as I understood. Mainly caused because the CoC violation was so long in the dark that I couldn't form an opinion on this application.