Re: This is getting ridiculous ...
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 02:06:41AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 07:26:52PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:12:59PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:53:52AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > No, Frans and Joey are not the only members of the d-i team that have a hard
> > > > time working with you.
> > >
> > > Ah, so you are the unnamed third one. Anyway, i guess you also don't
> > > have any kind of exemplar communication style, just see at how you
> > > managed the whole Vancouver mess,
> >
> > Ahh, the "whole Vancouver mess". Which, like, ended almost a year ago.
> > We're going that way now, are we? Digging way back in history just to
> > find /some/ bit of mud to sling?
>
> First, i was not the first one to mention this in this thread. Second, all
> this problem started back then, and as you may remember or not,
If you would look a bit further than your navel, you may remember that I
myself was originally very unhappy about the Vancouver proposal.
> the result was that i was very seriously insulted and almost quited
> all debian work back then because of that,
You don't really think you were alone there, do you?
> and because of other things like joeyh, Kamion and vorlon all falling
> on me with no concertation in 6 hours interval about some really minor
> mistake i made after spending a whole week of full time work to get
> the powerpc 2.4 kernels ready for sarge.
>
> Since then, all innocent joy i had in working on debian for almost 7
> years died, and i never was able to think about debian without some
> serious biterness,
Really, you should get over yourself.
What the Vancouver proposal tried to do was to improve Debian, since
having 11 architectures and getting them all up to quality takes a lot
of work, mostly by the release managers. It's only fair that they wanted
to change that.
I'll agree with you that their initial proposal wasn't ideal. You should
remember that I was fairly instrumental in helping to formulate an
updated proposal. If you don't, you *really* should start looking away
from your own navel.
> and each time i tried supering that, i found Frans on my path, being
> condescending and borderline insulting, believing he knez more about
> kernel packaging than me, and denying any kind of knowledge and
> competence.
Right.
> Never have any of those involved back then showed the less regret
> about their actions, or at least never told me so. They all felt they
> where justified, and indeed so justified that some of them repeated
> the same offense every couple of months since then.
I fail to see how trying to improve Debian somehow equates to "insulting
Sven Luther". But, yeah, sure, the world is out to get you.
> So, this is really an issue which started with the Vancouver mess,
> altough it was a colateral dammage.
>
> Now, you cannot say that Steve's presentation of the vancouver
> discussion, which was done in secret, without any kind of consultation
> to those involved, and all you know, so you cannot say that Steve was
> a masterful communicator back then, and frankly complaining about my
> communication problems is not something that Steve should do.
You'll never hear *me* saying that the Vancouver proposal is one of the
brighter points in Debian history. Hell no. But digging it up long after
it's been resolved, just so you can sling some mud at random people,
that's just childish.
> > Wonderful. Feels like primary school all over again.
>
> Indeed, like bullies targeting a solitair child, and making him their
> scapegoats for over a year.
rotfl.
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
Reply to: