Re: Renewed appeal to the technical committee about the FransAndCo.Vs.Sven dispute
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 12:31:31PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sven Luther writes ("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:
> > > 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.
> Firstly, I have no particular interest in the details of this. It is
But you still strongly weight your position in favour of them.
> Frans and Joey's decision and you'll just have to live with it. If
Yeah, i can live with that. What i cannot live with, is the quality of the
powerpc port to suffer from it, and our users to suffer from it.
I guess this also mean, that you could rule that on the powerpc arch, d-i is
no more built from the archive controlled by frans and joey, but one in which
i would be free to work without constraints, and for the best interest of our
> they said that they were denying you commit access because the moon
> was made of green cheese it would not be for the TC to overrule them.
> (Although we might issue an opinion saying we thought it wasn't.)
But the technical quality of the powerpc port, and how the current situation
hurts it is indeed within the responsability of the tech ctte, which is why i
chose to write to you about this. again.
> Secondly, I regret to say that I have some reservations about the
> accuracy of your reports of other people's opinions and actions.
Yes, please tell me which reservations, and i will clarify them.
Notice that this is indeed why many are siding against me on this, because
they are implying i am lying, which is in itsefl quite insulting to me.
At least you should leave me a chance to clarify these questions. And know
that i have *ALWAYS* recognized my errors if i made them, which can not be
said for the other side of this dispute, so my claims are of more value than
> > I would very much like a detailed comment from you to justify this. [...]
> Many other people have tried to explain this to you and failed. I see
> no reason to think I'm going to have any more success.
Well, many people have said to me : go away, you bother us, just be silent adn
everyone will be happy, or various variations of the same. Some have said they
would try to speak with Frans, but months and months pass without any change or
any evidence of what i i am really reproached, or sign that issues may change
> > 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
> > users.
So, when user come after the etch release, and voice complaints about random
breakage, we will say : we don't care, it is not a technical issue ?
> > 2) i should stop bothering the technical committee about this.
And the d-i folk should stop claiming there is a technical reason for their
> > 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.
> I warn you that if you think this will be to your advantage in this
> dispute you are seriously mistaken.
Oh, so there will not be a fair hearing based on facts, but that this
commision is a joke, and will only be formed to castigate me, and give full
reason to frans ? Well, i will indeed be quite disapointed by this, but in any
case, it can't probably be worse than what the DPL has done upto now.
It is my strong believe that the facts give me right, that i have made each
reasonable effort to accomodate the issue, even if i pressed aa bit, but given
the many months, you would have done the same in my place, and the only stuff
i got in return was of the "FUCK YOU"variety.
> > 2) if you do not do this, then you have to be fair, and condemn both
> > behaviours.
> I have seen no clear evidence of unreasonable behaviour by Frans or
please read :
. I am sorry, but you can't claim that telling me "FUCK YOU" is reasonable
behaviour by Frans. Nor can you say that JoeyH's reply to the petition set up
by Julien Blache (independent of me), who said :
I assume that everyone listed above is planning to work with Sven Luther in
developing the Debian installer once his commit access is restored, or have
some solution that will let the d-i developers who choose not to work with
him somehow continue to effectively work on d-i? Or have you just not
considered these issues? Signing your name without something to back it up
is a very weak gesture.
Is reasonable ? This sounds like a blackmail situation to me.
If you compare this to what i have said in
An last a personal message to Frans, remember when we where in Extremadura,
we had a good time, and we worked side by side. I seriously lament that it
all degenerated like it did. I certainly have my part of responsability in
this, but i passed though times, as you know. Let's put pride and arrogance
and remembrance of past hurts aside, and let's again work on d-i all
together, as it should be.
and you still say they are most reasonable, and i an unreasonaeble ? I guess
you have not even read my request to the tech comitte, nor the wiki page
linked from it, am i right ?
> Joey. I have seen you behaving unreasonably despite requests from
> nearly everyone to shut up. So it is quite fair of me to condemn you
> and not them.
So, you don't like what i am saying, so i have to shut up ?
So, you are wrong, a independent and honest commission investigating the issue
can only solve this to my uttermost satisfaction. The tech-ctte doesn't seem
to be this body, nor the DPL seems to be able to handle it, or delegate it to
someone able to solve the issue, so the issue will stay open forever.