Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo ...
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 01:58:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 10:38:58AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > Ok, this is an attemtp to statuate on the problematic which has been
> > opposing me and the d-i team on the subject of the commit access to the
> > d-i repository.
>
> > The decision to remove my svn commit access was done in order to solve a
> > social problem, and lacks any technical reasoning, and furthermore, this
> > decision causes technical hurdles and problems, and this issue is thus of
> > the ressort of the technical committee.
>
> I am not willing to entertain this matter at all, even to the point of a
> position statement reiterating the DPL's authority, unless you agree to
> accept this committee's decision as final. Given that you accused the DPL
> of taking Frans's side in response to his first public message on the
> subject of mediation, I think you are grasping at straws, seeking
Ok, speaking about this.
I understand nothing about the DPL mediation attempt. Really nothing.
He said he that Frans and the d-i team where right in removing the svn access,
but didn't give any of the reasoning why he reached that conclusion.
He said (in private) that the the way i communicated had nothing to do with
it, and i understand that this is exactly what is reproached to me in this
whole mess, so i have no idea what is reproached to me here.
I had 3 communications with him about this whole issue, and then he posted
this decision, without really speaking to me, this is not a mediation attempt,
but a sentence, as some said.
What do he expect to gain by forcing me to go through his humiliating proposal ?
In what respect is what he proposes just and proportionated to the problem ?
Why had i no reply to the proposal i made on marsch 29, and which you yourself
said seemed fair on irc ?
In these conditions, how could i accept this so-called 'mediation' ? And
really, from the tone of the mail, it was not a 'first public message', but a
final decision from him i should abide or not. In the private mail, he clearly
stated that it was final and my only recourse was the TC or a GR.
> vindication, *not* arbitration; and I see no point in spending time on this
Err, i want to be able to do my debian work without hindrance. The hindrances
and loops proposed by the DPL serve no benefit.
> issue here if you're just going to turn around and start a GR if you don't
> like our decision. You probably think it's terribly unjust of me to ask you
As i startedto reply to Ian yesterday, no, i won't start a GR as is, as i
believe a GR is not the way to discuss this issue. I am very tempted about a
GR which codifies expulsion requests in such a way that it cannot be tried
without a mediation attempt first, and i believe i will at least have enough
supporters for this. I am not sure about a GR to solve this problem though, i
have no idea how it would be worded, maybe something of the kind : "someone
with admin right to some debian infrastructure (alioth svn repo, DSA,
ftp-master, etc.) should not have the right to withdraw access to this
infrastructure from a fellow DD in an arbitrary way, without giving a good
technical reason". I am not sure.
> to give up your constitutional right to appeal to the developers, but then,
> I think it's unjust of you to appeal to every authority in the constitution
> instead of taking responsibility for trying to build a mature working
> relationship with the people from whom you are currently demanding the
> restoration of d-i commit access.
Well, the problem, and i claimed this since the first, is that the problem is
not just me, like everyone is thinking here. Frans blundered, on the social
and human side by the timing of his expulsion. And he has been agressive and
bashing of me since too many months. It is not only a problem with me, i can
be meak and subservient, and do as requested, but unless there is some
realisation of their part of the problem on the other side, this will only
repeat itself. I was intenting to search an end to this, and the surprising
position of the DPL on this, force me to seriously reconsider a lot of things.
So, yes, i will take every way i can to get this isssue discussed. In these
conditions, i can't continue any debian work, and will probably go silent and
inactive for a long time if this fails. So, i am searching an official
position of the project on wheter what frans and the d-i team did to me is
something the debian project finds normal and acceptable, in which case, i
will bitterly regret my past 8 years of contribution, and go.
> I'm surprised you would bring this issue to the TC at all; you already know
> the opinion of two TC members on the question of whether Frans's action was
> acceptable, because you and I had a long private discussion about it on IRC,
> and the DPL whose mediation you've rejected is also a member of the
Indeed, i hope to get a more fair handling in a forum which is publicly logged
though. I also asked a question :
Wheter it is acceptable for debian to use technical power to solve social
issues, and wheter it is acceptable for one of the parties of the dispute to
be the one applying those powers.
I don't really feel the TC is the best place for it, but a GR is another
degree gravity, so ...
Already Anthony, and Ian have declared that yes, indeed, it is ok for someone
holding some kind of power, to use it to silence opponents in social disputes.
This seems to indeed be to have been done regularly in the past, as earning
elmo's bad graces was a blocking point for many things, from NEW processing,
to NM admission. My believe is that this is an error, and not in benefit of
what debian should represent, and i feel that many will agree with me on this.
So, i asked you a question, which is ideological and to a degree technical,
and voluntarily didn't mention any of the dispute with frans, because i wanted
a reply on the principles of it, and not an arbitration over my social dispute
with frans and the unammed d-i guys who he discussed this with.
> committee. The probability of getting a 3:1 overruling of Frans's decision
> from this committee when 2 of 7 members already disagree with you is
> incredibly small. And even if we did overrule him, do you honestly think
> that forcing him to accept you as a member of the team when it's clear that
> you two do not respect and trust each other is something that's good for
> Debian?
I am not asking that he accepts me as a member of the d-i team, i don't care
about this. I am asking that he doesn't withdraw debian infrastructure from
me, which i have never abused, and i believe a right to as much as anyone
else.
There is some of my own copyrighted code in that svn repo, i believe it is my
right to be able to continue working on it and have commit access.
Like said, if he had proposed a ban like assufield had, from posting on
debian-boot, we would not even have this discussion. But this decision cannot
be explained as anything else as using a technical stick to subdue or punish
someone with which you have a disagreement.
> > Furthermore, the subversion repository is used as communication between
> > the different members of a project, and in cases like d-i, it is the
> > prefered form of modification for the code base included in it. Notice
> > this 'prefered form of modification', which has some serious implications
> > with regard to GPLed code.
>
> This is the most miserable sort of FUD, and I'm ashamed for you for making
> such a claim in your desperation to regain membership in the d-i team. You
> don't do yourself any favors at all by exaggerating and making outrageous
> statements.
Well, what is wrong about it ? you may not like it, but it is true. The
legalese may be not evfident from the wording of the GPL, and the consequences
of that far-ranging and problematic, but it remains that the prefered form of
modification of d-i is by commiting to the svn repo, and refusing access to
the svn repo is a violation of the spirit of the GPL.
Anyway, all i ask is that the question i ask be judged fairly, the question,
not my dispute with frans. Or if the TC feels this is not the right venue
for this, i would appreciate where the right place is for this.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: