Re: Dealing with the NM people
Manuel,
thanks. Very nice email.
I think you wrote what many people would like to write as well.
I just stopped to care about being Debian Dev/Maint.
Some years ago I wanted to become first Developer and then Maintainer
as well. I was told, that I need to be Maintainer first.
So I was following the written rules about becoming the Maintainer.
But one of the "important guys" wrote me, that written rules
and reality is a bit different..
I do not really need to be part of community, where people behaves
like that ....
So I continue to maintain and work on my 2 packages (asking someone
else to upload them), from time to reporting some bugs and
I do not care any more. There are many other projects where people
are may be not very polite, but at least they are following the agreed
and written rules ...
good luck
Jozef
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
<manuel.montezelo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Christoph, others,
>
> Sorry for the long mail, and tedious (especially the definitions), but I
> don't want to be accused again of using inexact words.
>
> On Friday 02 July 2010 10:23:37 Christoph Berg wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm preaching to the choir here, but: if you are mailing with other
>> people, and especially with those from the NM front-desk who might
>> help you with getting through the NM process, it is neither helpful
>> nor acceptable to use sentences like "Don't be silly" as the opening
>> statement, being "a bit fed up with your unofficial policies", or
>> doing finger-pointing on other NMs being processed at the same time.
>>
>> Please calm down, and come back in a few months. Thank you.
>
> 1) Re: unnofficial policies
>
> I don't find acceptable that you apply unnoficial policies that are not
> clearly stated in the webpages, and you had at least two:
>
> a) the one of the photo ID, and more importantly:
>
> b) that you can't apply to DD without being DM first, when the web pages
> *clearly* state that it's highly recommendable but not mandatory, and I'm an
> "unofficial Debian Maintainer" anyway: "It is highly recommended that you
> become familiar with the role of Debian Maintainer and apply for this role
> before applying to become a Debian Developer", from
> http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint .
>
> You can't turn down my application just because of an unofficial policy
> contrary to "official" texts. And now I applied for DM anyway, but more
> importantly, I was unofficial (not appearing anywhere but in changelog
> entry) maintainer of OpenSceneGraph for more than 6 months. Why does matter
> that much that I'm "official maintainer" or just do the work just because I
> care for Debian? My compromise with Debian is the same, becoming official
> DM is just a bureaucratic step.
>
> So that unnofficial policy that you invented is not good not fair to the
> applicants. It's like going on an exam when the teachers put a paper in the
> wall telling to study chapters 1 to 10, and you find that you have also
> questions from chapters 11 and 12.
>
> To add insult to injury, I asked in the list before if signatures by DM were
> as valid as DD, by other words, if they were "Debian Members" or not (which
> is all what some documents say), and pointing the incoherence of the photo
> ID. And you replied me thanking for spotting the thing about the photo ID
> and removing it, and also telling that maybe I was confused and meant that I
> wanted to be DM instead of DD or something like that. You knew that you
> were going to deny my application as DD if I was not DM, so why didn't you
> just tell it to me then? You only told me that I should *consider* applying
> for DM first, and to adopt some packages was *because you didn't find me in
> any "Uploaders" field*.
>
>
> 2) Re: "Don't be silly"
>
> 2.a) Some definitions:
>
> - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/silly: "3b: exhibiting or
> indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment <a very silly
> mistake>; 3c: trifling, frivolous"
>
> - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frivolous: "2a: lacking in
> seriousness"
>
> 2.b) You know that the person to whom I replied was mocking my previous work
> in a way which I also don't find acceptable. I don't think that he is
> stupid ("foolish", in some of the acceptions/meanings of "silly"), so the
> only explanation that I find for his behaviour is "lacking in seriousness"
> (not reading my explanations in the application; and knowing that what he
> was attributing to me was utterly ridiculous), and I explained exacly this
> in my reply, saying "silly" as a kind of "do not joke or mock me", and
> explaining again my accomplishments in the case that he didn't understand
> them properly. Not trying to understand me (i.e., ignoring my applicaiton
> and the efforts that I'm doing to help Debian) is "lack of seriousness";
> mocking me on these grounds is insulting me, in a way that it's more serious
> than calling someone "silly".
>
> 2.c) I thought that I was talking to hardened developers in a community
> famous for its flame wars, not having tea with the Queen of England. I
> didn't know that using the word "silly" would cause such a distress.
>
>
> 3) Re: finger-pointing
>
> 3.a) Some definitions again:
>
> - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/finger+pointing: "the act of
> making explicit and often unfair accusations of blame"
>
> - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfair: "marked by injustice,
> partiality, or deception"
>
> - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defaming: "2: to harm the
> reputation of by libel or slander"
>
> - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slander: "1: the utterance of
> false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's
> reputation"
>
> - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evade: "2: to take refuge in
> escape or avoidance; 2c: to avoid answering directly : turn aside"
>
> - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wiles: "1: a trick or stratagem
> intended to ensnare or deceive"
>
> 3.b) So I didn't finger-point applicants to NM being processed at the same
> time, if I was doing so the conclusion would be "they don't deserve being
> Debian Developers" or "they are doing bad things", when I clearly say
> otherwise in each case:
>
> 3.b.1) "And I'm not at all against him being approved, in fact I think that
> he more than worths it."
>
> 3.b.2) "I think that he's an excellent fellow to have in Debian"
>
> 3.c) If I'm finger-pointing at somebody, "the act of making *explicit*
> accusations", is to you (you as in Front Desk, in the case that you also
> misunderstand that 'you'); on the basis that you (Front Desk or some of its
> members, I don't know) are:
>
> 3.c.1) being *silly* (this time as in "exhibiting or indicative of a lack of
> common sense or sound judgment") when mocking applicants' work;
>
> 3.c.2) *unfair* when judging applicants with different --and apparently
> whimsical-- criteria (which is one of the worst things that a judge can do,
> and you are the judges telling who can come in and who can not);
>
> 3.c.3) *defamatory* / *slenderers* (telling that "someone in the choir" is
> finger-pointing other NM applicants, when I didn't).
>
> 3.c.4) *evading with wiles* the real issue (whether I'm a valid applicant to
> NM or not), "preaching to the choir" and not addressing me directly, with
> the excuses that you (Cristoph) mentioned in your mail, which are partly
> false and partly bad excuses.
>
>
> 4) Therefore I claim that your behaviour ("your" as in Christoph Berg's, and
> eventually other people participating in the decision regarding the
> publication of this e-mail on the basis of our communication regarding the
> application to NM) is unacceptable, and that you (Christoph Berg and the
> rest of people participating) are not worthy of being trusted with the
> important task of judging NM applicants.
>
>
> Regards.
> --
> Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-newmaint-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: 201007021405.47413.manuel.montezelo@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/201007021405.47413.manuel.montezelo@gmail.com
>
>
Reply to: