On 2011-04-14 17:30, Ben Armstrong wrote:
Well, it wasn't. A revert war is not a proper way to communicate a point
a view. Had I had a point of view to communicate, I'd probably have
expressed it on this very mailing list.
On 14/04/11 05:56 PM, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
Heh, I hope you're not actually implying I expressed a problem with a
revert war on the wiki :-)
It appeared that was your mode of asserting your point of view in the
face of opposition and advice as to how to properly express it, yes.
The restorations I did were indeed no mistake, they were concrete
actions to workaround a concrete problem. I had no message of dissent to
I expressed the problem on the mailing list. What I did on the wiki was
not expressing the problem, obviously, but working around it.
If it were obvious, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Had you
done it once, I'd have dismissed it as a mistake. Your repeated actions
spoke of a purposeful message of dissent.
No, I was not pointed to the correct procedures, and I did not flatly
refuse to contribute to the manual. I don't know what you have in mind
when you write I "disagreed with how we[you] executed [y]our plan to
migrate the wiki documentation to [y]our official manual", but I
wouldn't say I did. The only thing you could say I disagreed with was
Daniel's removal of the information on how to put a USB image on a
stick, and I think calling that a "disagreement" is sensationalist. I
consider the removal as nothing but a simple error.
I wrote to Franklin because he removed the wiki page that correctly
featured the problematic information. I didn't mean to provoke anyone.
Disingenuous. Of course you meant to provoke. You clearly disagreed with
how we executed our plan to migrate the wiki documentation to our
official manual, and rather than follow the correct procedures once they
were pointed out to you, you flatly refused to contribute to the manual
and went right back and did the same thing over again.
This issue was causing problems for users, and I saw people struggle to
write Debian Live to a USB stick no later than yesterday.
Were they referring to out-of-date documentation, then, or simply not
I don't know.
I don't see how I would have thwarted anyone's efforts. I simply
restored information. If the effort was to move that information, I was
not preventing in any way anyone to properly move it again.
I wanted to
have a workaround until the issue was properly fixed.
Well and good. Nothing was stopping you from making a personal page with
the removed material and referring people you personally helped to that
page. There was no call for deliberately thwarting our efforts.
nothing was stopping you from making a contribution to the manual, as we
requested, either directly or by filing a bug.
Sure, but filing a bug report by itself does not solve a problem.
No, I didn't mean to say that anyone had a fixation on the wiki, but if
you think someone did, it must not be me, nor you. It's unfortunate that
you consider I worked against you. I worked for users, and
I would like to be told if that work happened to be detrimental to the
work of any other contributor.
Is it me that had a fixation on the wiki? ;-)
The implication being I do? On the contrary, for months, I've had a
fixation on live-manual, one that has served me well in getting the job
done. This business with the wiki was unwelcome and time-wasting. It
diverted time and energy away from doing this job. I would have *gladly*
let the matter drop had you shown an interest in working with us instead
of against us.
Speaking about the BTS, I
filed a minor bug related to putting Debian Live on media.
Thank you for your filing. The corrected chapter will be included in the