Re: Another level of agression ?
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 12:28:16PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther (firstname.lastname@example.org) [070528 12:14]:
> > On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 11:17:39AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 08:38:24AM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote:
> > > > I can understand the latter. However, maybe it was just a mistake and
> > > > waldi didn't want to remove Sven but accidently removed one line too much
> > > > or something? He'll probably speak up and explain things.
> > >
> > > I already said that I can't remember. I know there was something about
> > > dilinger and wli but not more.
> > Fine, so can you reactivate my access ?
> It seems that waldi doesn't want to do it, and also not to give any
> statement that he wanted to kick you out. I consider this a very bad
> behaviour, at least. And not acceptable.
> We had just an IRC-discussion (in German):
> 12:15 < Ganneff> waldi: wie siehts aus mit svenl wieder zum alioth
> kernel zuzufügen nachdem er da wohl ungeplant flog?
> 12:15 < waldi> Ganneff: es hat eigentlich keiner lust sich mit ihm
> abzugeben. ein teil ignoriert ihn komplett
> 12:15 < aba> waldi: *du* hast ihn entfernt. Dann bist Du auch fürs
> aufräumen zuständig.
> 12:16 < Ganneff> waldi: dann schreib ihm entweder sowas als entscheidung
> vom kernel team wenns die gibt oder füg ihn wieder zu. aber ignorieren
> ist nix gut.
> 12:16 < aba> waldi: entweder sagst du offiziell, das du ihn draußen
> haben willst. Oder du fügst ihn wieder hinzu.
> 12:17 < Ganneff> waldi: und es heisst svn zufügen, das muss nit
> unbedingt wieder admin sein. solang er dran arbeiten kann - oder
> alternativ halt weiss dass es nix wird weil $grund.
> 12:21 < Ganneff> waldi: so?
> 12:27 < Ganneff> waldi: im moment siehts eher so aus dass du deinen
> access zu kernel (zumindest admin) verlieren solltest, nicht sven.
> (and no answer from waldi up to now)
> As you can see, there is no need for you to escalate it - other people
> will take care of that. :)
Well, we would not have this kind of problems if debian was a more
egalitarian place, where every DD would have a rigth to work on what
pleases him, and that the most efficient infrastructure support be given
him for that. The only reason for stopping a DD to work on something or
giving him access would be serious technical reasons.
This is the Debian i believed in, but, now as a year ago when the d-i
leadership removed me from the d-i team because 'i was not respectful
enough', debian doesn't seem to work this way anymore if it ever did.
So, instead of trying to discuss this in the back, as you and Joerg did,
with good intentions maybe, why not tackle the issue frontally, and
resolve in one go all that which leds to frustration and flamewars in
If a few people, who used to do great work maybe, are unwilling to play
fairly, and behave like little (or not so little) dictators in the area
they have managed to get themselves in a power position, then maybe
debian is better off without them, and they can take time off to reflect
on what debian means to them.
So, again, i ask that my d-i and kernel svn access be restored, and that
the suspension be removed. None of those where technically justified,
none of them had any impact appart from dragging debian into a year-long
flamewar, and in general, none of these decisions where the result of
fair or even simply acceptably decent decisions.