[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Renewed appeal to the technical committee about the FransAndCo.Vs.Sven dispute

On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 11:43:08AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sven Luther writes ("Re: Renewed appeal to the technical committee
> about the FransAndCo.Vs.Sven dispute"):
> > [stuff]
> I'm glad to see that I'm not on your list of `one-sided' people.  Not
> that I expect you to be pleased when I tell you this: the reason all
> these people are disagreeing with you isn't because they're biased.
> It's because of your intolerable behaviour.

Oh well.

> I hereby propose the following resolution:
> 1. We note that Sven Luther has a dispute with the debian-installer
>    team; Sven feels that he should have access to the d-i svn
>    repository.
> 2. We note that the d-i team, who manage that repository, disagree.
> 3. Whether or not someone should be permitted commit access to a
>    repository is a social and political matter.  Therefore we do not
>    have the power to overrule the d-i team on this question.

So, you clearly agree that there is no technical reason for the the svn commit
access to be removed. This is a strong claim of frans and joeyh, that this is
not a personal dispute, but there are technical reasons for the current state
of things.

> 4. Nevertheless, we wish to state some opinions as we are
>    empowered to do by s6.1(5) of the constitution:


> 5. Sven:  Your behaviour leaves much to be desired.
>    You should stop wasting everyone's time and energy with this
>    campaign to be reinstated as a d-i committer.  Regardless of the
>    merits of the original decision, by now it seems unlikely that
>    anyone on the d-i team would find you a congenial colleague, and we
>    can see good reasons for their decision to hold you at arm's
>    length.

I would very much like a detailed comment from you to justify this. I am
really baffled by this, i have tried nothing else than doing good technical
work, and the other side is handling me "FUCK YOU"s and other agressivity.

Maybe you could also rule that frans and co should stop everyone time, and
allow technical improvements to go into d-i without further social-dispute
mandated constraints.

>    Please do not contact the committee again on this matter.
> 6. The Project Leader should delegate (to a group rather than to an
>    individual, but perhaps to an existing group or groups) mediation
>    and disciplinary powers, including the power to intervene
>    informally, give formal advice and reprimands, rule on social
>    disputes, and take disciplinary action short of expulsion.

Great, and if the DPL choses to further ignore the issue ? It is not like i
have been trying to get in contact with him for over a month now, and mostly
failed ? 

So, as conclusion, this means : 

The technical committee rules that :

  1) this is not a technical issue, even if is has technical consequences on
  the quality of the debian distribution on powerpc, and affects our powerpc

  2) i should stop bothering the technical committee about this.

  3) the DPL should create a proper delegation to a group who will be able to
  handle a fair mediation on this, as well as have the power to act afterward.

This is fine with me.

I would appreciate if you modified those points :

  1) your accusation of my behaviour is unjustified, and one-sided, please
  drop them. They bring nothing, and fail to be objective.

  2) if you do not do this, then you have to be fair, and condemn both


Sven Luther

Reply to: