[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 12:14:41PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Of the other members, believe both Steve Langasek, and Anthony Towns have
> showed clear uncomprehension and one-sidedness about this issue, and i am not
> sure they will be able to pass an objective judgement over this. Manoj
> Srivastava also has been strongly aggressive against me about the non-free
> firmware vote, which he manipulated in favour of his own position, maybe
> unconciously.

I do not believe that having previously formed my own opinion about your
behavior towards the d-i release managers constitutes an unfair bias in this
matter, and AFAICS the only reason you have for claiming that my view is
subjective where that of others is not is that I disagree with you.  I
therefore decline to recuse myself from the technical committee on this
basis.  If I thought it would actually make a difference in your willingness
to respect the committee's decision I would gladly do so; but we already see
that you're criticizing Ian for "strongly weight[ing his] position in favour
of [Frans and Joey]", so I don't believe my recusation would change either
the outcome of a TC vote, or your ongoing straw-grasping search for an
authority that will side with you.

On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 01:00:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 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.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/11/msg00610.html:

  Welcome to the d-i team, this is the way that people who are not in the
  one true straigth line, or humble enough, or whatever, are dealt with.

  [...]

  But then, you are right to voice your critic of this ambient, i was myself
  told to be silent about this, but i do strongly believe that the d-i
  leadership is dead wrong in this approach, rejecting discussion, trying to
  marginalize those they disagree with, and so on, and i think that they
  should be reminded regularly of their errors, in order to some day drop a
  bit their pride and learn how to work with people with ideas that don't
  follow the one staight dogma.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/11/msg00956.html:

  You are hurting our users (there where many requests for this feature from
  G5 powermac users), and are acting in evident bad faith, while insisting
  that it is all my own fault, this cannot continue as is. Please try to
  maturate a bit, and stop acting this childishly.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/11/msg00968.html:

  Another clueless comment.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/11/msg00966.html:

  You clearly have no clue, so i wonder why you question the patch ? Go and
  ask Colin or someone else with a clue or look at the code, since it is
  clear you don't thrust me.

and finally, the *non-technical* content of the message the evoked the "fuck
you" in question, http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/10/msg01554.html:

  Ok, Frans, please step back into reality.

  [...]

  Furthermore, my attitude has been more than correct with you and the d-i
  team since at least the starting of september, and you have yourself
  indulged at least four-five times, in practices against me which are the
  exact echo of what was reproached against me back then.

  I thus now call to our DPL, as well as the remainer of the d-i team. The
  mediation procedure which was set upon me doesn't seem to be ever enough
  to satisfy Frans, and i have suffered enough and we are now in a a phase
  where there is no reason to keep this on, and it is time that the
  situation is now re-evaluated, and that this childish nonsense is left
  aside, and my commit rights to the d-i project is re-instated.

I fully expect that you will respond to this enumeration in true form, by
rationalizing each and every one of these departures from "good technical
work" into the realm of personal attacks on your interlocutor with claims
that Frans started it, that he deserved it, that you wouldn't have needed to
resort to such behavior if there weren't "childish" limitations on your
commit rights, etc., etc., ad nauseam.  But I equally expect that the point
will not be lost on my fellow technical committee members: that your claim
that you "have tried nothing else than doing good technical work" is
*false*.  Inasmuch as you *have* tried to limit yourself to technical work,
you nevertheless abandoned this vow well before this current mail to the
technical committee, as you do each time you feel slighted.

> 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
>   behaviours.

I wonder that you think it's appropriate for a petitioner to tell the body
he's appealing to that they must do something.

On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 01:56:29PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:

> 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
> users. 

It is not in the best interest of powerpc's users to have forked versions of
any number of d-i-related packages just because you feel you should be able
to make any changes you want without Frans's review and approval.  I'm a
member of the installer team in good standing, and *I* don't consider it my
place to make unilateral changes to the installer in the face of objections
from Frans or Joey.  If you chafe so much at having your patches questioned
by the d-i release manager, then I don't believe that either restoring your
svn commit access or letting you run your own separate installer port for
powerpc is an appropriate solution.

> 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
> theirs.

Recognizing one's errors counts for very little when it doesn't stop you
from committing the same errors.

> It is my strong believe that the facts give me right,

Yes, a belief so strong that it remains unshaken no matter how many people
tell you you're wrong.

> 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,

No, most Debian developers don't have the sense of entitlement that you do,
and would have found other ways to participate instead of continuing to
scream that d-i commit access is their right as a DD.

> and the only stuff i got in return was of the "FUCK YOU"variety.

This sort of hyperbole is precisely the kind of thing that might leave one
disinclined to take your characterizations of others' actions at face value.

> 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.

Reminding people that Debian is not a democracy is perfectly reasonable.

Calling Joey's statement "blackmail" is not reasonable.

> 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.

Perhaps the DPL should delegate a committee consisting of your immediate
family in order to satisfy your requirements for independence and honesty.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/



Reply to: