Fw: was it conforming with Debian policies to backport the problem to stable ?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Finally I can tell something to the Debian community about the psychology of
the me-too movement:
The idea there is obviously, that an invented, hypothetical claim of
harassment or even rape is good enough to run a valuable, valid and credible
simulation of such incidents and their consequences, lasting for years or
over one decade if need be.
You usually are not even telling this to the one, whose victim you wannabe,
but even if you accuse him openly, in written form as in my case, and if he
refutes the claim, as I did, because of your proficiently perfect
social-networking, your claim will still be more credible and more
believable and thus will have more weight for your lots of good
network-marketing friends than the refute.
If you are only accusing somebody of sexual assault, for example by
telling something alike to your boss, to your employer without informing the
one who allegedly did something, he has no way of even knowing about it,
and thus he would have no chance of refuting the accusations.
So in a way you want to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, because you found
some rumours about the person on the internet, you are calculating, it might
be credible if you also accuse that guy, he might also have done something
to you, since you happened to meet him personally, or at least
theoretically you could have met him personally in private, and since he
does not know about it, it would be safe to add one more such rumour from your
side, and to run the desired social simulation.
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 14:03:20 +0100
From: andrew glaeser <bugs@irregulaire.info>
To: leader@debian.org
Subject: Fw: was it conforming with Debian policies to backport the problem
to stable ?
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello there, since Nussbaum did not reply to me,
I want to complain about New-Member Process 2013: This was a complete farce,
my appeal was rejected unchecked, by Palfrader, since I was a non-uploader.
Nussbaum welcomed me personally to the NM-process, and there were some freely
invented claims of harassment against me, so one could be sure, NO membership
is granted initially, and not even the small favour of the debian-
E-mail-address is granted to give some weight to my bugs-reporting.
This was eight years ago nearly, Palfraders FB-friends were granted accounts
for hacking up something, that is the feasible explanation, why so many
worsened packages were delivered in recent years. So Palfrader should most
probably be thrown out, because he allegedly suffers from social corruption.
And Nussbaum should not be permitted to become DPL again, he did not work for
me in 2013, and still he is not replying to me: if I were allowed to vote, I
would vote for anybody except Nussbaum, for me personally no such thing as
franco-german friendship exists.
What are EUR 450 in Germany, if you have to live on welfare continuously for
more than eight years? That is the sum of money for one month's rent, or the
amount you need for your other living-expenses for one month.
> > DPL term 2020-2021 (JonathanCarter):
> >
> > DPL term 2019-2020 (?SamHartman): Apr 2019, May 2019, Jun 2019, Jul 2019,
> > Aug 2019, Oct 2019, Nov 2019, Dec 2019
> >
> > DPL term 2018-2019 (ChrisLamb): Apr 2018, May 2018, Jun 2018, Jul 2018,
> > Aug 2018, Sep 2018, Oct 2018, Nov 2018, Dec 2018, Jan 2019, Feb 2019, Mar
> > 2019
> >
> > DPL term 2017-2018 (ChrisLamb): May 2017, Jun 2017, Jul 2017, Aug 2017,
> > Sep 2017, Oct 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Feb 2018, Mar 2018
> >
> > DPL term 2016-2017 (MehdiDogguy): March-April 2017 January-February 2017,
> > 2016 Q4, June 2016, April-May 2016
> >
> > DPL term 2015-2016 (NeilMcGovern): April July May
> >
> > DPL term 2013-2014 (LucasNussbaum): September August July June May April
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 19:11:10 +0100
From: andrew glaeser <bugs@irregulaire.info>
To: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>
Subject: Fw: was it conforming with Debian policies to backport the problem
to stable ?
- - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dear Lucas, since you were the DPL 2013, when I attended DebConf in
Switzerland, is it normal, that the new-member process takes 10 years, and
before that period is over, people are getting nothing except the technically
speaking worthless free software? I did not ask you personally for your kind
approval, since I knew already the power of the DPL is limited, you had the
top paid job at the time and I had none, and now it has been nearly for full
10 years without any paid work, since I am not allowed to do any in Germany,
the question needs to be settled in front of the social law-court.
I lacked the planning-safety at the time to ask for sponsored, assisted
attendance beforehand, and afterwards it gave actually a sense of wonder to me
that the Debian e-mail address was not even necessary for my participation.
In contradiction to that my bug-reports were usually ignored, I had sort of a
subscription to the wontfix tag. So that I even regretted in a way, I had even
asked in the first place and went to Vaumarcus at my own expense, or on the
expense of my parents to be precise. It was no nice journey either, so that I
could possibly say something about a beautiful vacation in a nice
environment or anything, so in effect really a working-trip at my own
expense with no reward at all, and even rather the opposite, a bunch of
artificially worsened packages were delivered to me in recent years.
And this is probably the social component in Debian, that non-uploaders won't
get in, and are in fact discriminated against wherever possible, right?
Or is this possibly because I lack the normal sense of sensibility to choose
the much more beautifully polished commercial Ubuntu Distribution for the
desktop instead?
They also have Corona in south-africa, you know what I mean?
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 09:45:33 +0200
From: andrew glaeser <bugs@irregulaire.info>
To: control@bugs.debian.org
Subject: was it conforming with Debian policies to backport the problem to
stable ?
- - - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
tag 971076 buster
tag 971076 bullseye
I do wonder in fact, why bugs are frequently getting backported from testing
to stable ( I guess it might frequently, since I found something like this
twice). This is not really complying with Debian policies, or is there not
enough testing, or are there too many bugs known and even placed
deliberately, you know, but we do it silently, no need to produce any special
publicity about this?
And in order to tell you something about my new-member process ( from 2013)
may be your NO!! decision was 100% correct technically speaking, since I did
not need the debian- e-mail-account desperately enough to ask the DPL, and I
did have some private sponsoring from relatives.
But was it also correct emotionally? What I mean is that this NO!! really is
the reason, why people quit their jobs, and do not insist to stay, and
particularly with no personal appreciation at all from the chief of the IT
department.
__
SO: Well, may be, but do you really want to sue Debian, so that you get a paid
job from them finally? Not possible, and over the term of 10 years it is
still a mostly good operating-system nearly for free.
EUR 450,- for travel, accommodation and for attending DebConf13, is EUR 45
per year for an almost excellent super-cheap open-source operating system in
comparison to Windows-Server, no matter from what year.
- - - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iF0EARECAB0WIQTF9uNaslvnJpWt8kXn6sEfJS3nCwUCX3Q3nQAKCRDn6sEfJS3n
Cz1AAJ9GJnd8FL/P2tshVEqJsihluQtk+QCfcIWFAEbZKokgvQsygfJaYXsuE9w=
=Yiza
- - - -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iF0EARECAB0WIQTF9uNaslvnJpWt8kXn6sEfJS3nCwUCYBRPvgAKCRDn6sEfJS3n
C7OpAKCHjO3nVmohJh7Y6c7CWW3BTWwQLwCfb9Yn4r1A40DfxAhxppWNlEyCT2M=
=2JoQ
- - -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iF0EARECAB0WIQTF9uNaslvnJpWt8kXn6sEfJS3nCwUCYBqfGAAKCRDn6sEfJS3n
C/zGAKCFwSWHWsO7ZMDtH+GHWmmbNtykpQCfSnoyKuO+J6cRDLQzpauTCOhGews=
=D+2w
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iF0EARECAB0WIQTF9uNaslvnJpWt8kXn6sEfJS3nCwUCYB0YoAAKCRDn6sEfJS3n
C0QtAJ0TJ0aMeziCmlUo4GEG6Ln1iR/QpgCgooB094FWsG7+B5ySBbrsIlfLfno=
=EqIs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: