Re: Renewed appeal to the technical committee about the FransAndCo.Vs.Sven dispute
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 06:19:33AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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
Well, i base this bias on the mails you wrote where you fully sided with frans
in this issue, and against me. I think you did so more than once, altough i
don't remember exactly.
> 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
Well, he is indeed strongly doing so, going ad-hominem against me, for the
sole reason that i am strongly pushing to get this issue resolved, while all
others seem to prefer to drag it on forever.
> the outcome of a TC vote, or your ongoing straw-grasping search for an
> authority that will side with you.
As i said, i believe that you are biased against me, but if you are able to
make an objective participation on the TC vote, so much the better.
> 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.
>
> [...]
This is indeed how i see it. It was very interesting to see how someone else
than me felt he was handled in such a way by the d-i team also. I prefer this
quote though :
Sven Luther (on the original wiki page) :
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.
Frans Pop (on irc, about the wiki page containing the above) :
01:18 <fjp> My honest opinion of it: the biggest load of self-satisfied and
self-centered crap I've ever seen
> 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.
Well, i will disapoint you. I will do no such thing. I recognize, as i said
above, that both i and frans have misbheaved, that we both let the anger at
seeing absurdities, ad-hominem attacks, or wrong actions get the better of us,
and this is why this escalated.
The difference between him and me though, is that i repeteadly tried to go
forward, to better this situation, to discuss with him. And repeteadly, means
like 10 times or so since spring, and each of those cases where fully rejected
in the same way the above proposal was rejected.
Neither was i clearly told what it is they have against me, nor any visible
effort has been made to put the issue aside and work well together.
Now, this list above from you clearly show that you are not objective or
biased. If you where objective, you would not only attacked me, but also
listed the numerous as-hominem attacks against me from frans, listed how in
this last email exchange where i called frans clueless, he, in order to
discredit my technical skills, attacked my patches and made clueless comments
which would fully break the -prep support.
You would also mention how, Frans, seeing that the upload of rootskel 1.43 had
a very minor bug (concerning the redirection of the output of the loaded
modules), silently reverted it, without even trying to contact me about this
little problem in the patch, patch which has been open in the BTS since almost
a month.
But no, you silently skipped all this, and only gave the most damaging mails
from me, and even then the only the extracts that most damaged me.
Notice how i was asked to do the same you have done against frans, some time
back, and that instead i chose to write the wiki page at :
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/FransPopAndOthersVs.SvenLutherIssue/SvenLuther
Which was an attempt from my part to solve this issue in a positive and
constructive way, but was received as we all know, and mostly ignored by those
who had a possibility to influence the issue, and then, what, another month
passed, and we are still in the same mess.
So, Steve, can you look yourself in a mirror, and honestly tell that you are
acting unbiased, honestly and in good faith ? That your interaction in this
dispute has the solving of it in mind ? Or rather that you where in the group
of people who knew about it from the begining, and where part of those who
where consulted by Frans when he decided to kick me out of the project in
spring.
Also, if you where trully objective, you would also list your own interaction
in this discussion, and then it would become clear to all that you where
indeed biased in the past, which is why i have some doubt about your capacity
of holding an unbiased judgement in this.
> > 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.
You can decide what you want, i just feel strongly that this part of it is
biased against me, and one-sided in the dispute, and said so.
I strongly wish for a honest, un-biased and objective body to intervene in
this issue. I asked the DPL to do this in spring, but the same as you, he
fully sided against me, and now, so many month after the fact, we are still in
the same mess. I agree with Ian that the TC is maybe not this body, but given
the biased decision by the DPL back then, and his continuous ignorance of it,
i really don't know anymore what to do about it.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: