Re: serious problems with Mr. Troup
David B Harris <email@example.com> writes:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:25:48 +0100 (CET)
> "Ingo Juergensmann" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > In a private followup, Ingo suggested that a big concern was James' lack
> > > of communication on the matter, but the quoted "Ingo, I said
> > > non-negotiable and I meant it. Either you agree to this, or you don't
> > > get any sort of access to ftp-master, period." is pretty clear.
> > > Feel free to "address" that as well.
> > It's not about agreeing to that specific policy, but about how that got
> > communicated and how future cooperation with Mr. Troup should look like. When
To say it in different words. Ingo can agree to it but not accept it
without some further understandings. Reasons being the communication
blackout and general implementation of the policy.
Some buildds have gotten access in days (was 2 the minimum?) while
Ingo (and me too) has been left hanging without.
> > he is not willing to cooperate with others (i.e. me, having me in ignore and
> > mailfilters), then I feel that it's not worth to agree to that policy because
> > the next problem will come sooner or later.
> > There's a problem (with Mr. Troup) and it needs to get addressed properly.
> I believe James' communication on the matter was more than clear. "Ingo,
> I said non-negotiable and I meant it." That was obviously a direct reply
> to yourself.
How about James
- creates the missing user/pass pairs for the buildds (point a of
- agrees to removes the mail filter (concern b)
This could be limited to the, to be created, buildd-admin
mailinglist where changes and news concerning buildd should then
be announced prior to implementation when possible.
- agrees to respond to the then unfiltered mails from ij concerning
buildd/wanna-build operations in a timely manner (concern c)
- creates a new set of user/pass pairs for every buildd working before
the compromise (concern d). The existing user/pass keys are
compromised (they appear(ed) in log on buildd.debian.org) and any
security measure is useless without changing them.
And Ingo accepts the new policy.
Does that sound unreasonable?