On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 08:05:25AM +0100, Ansgar 🙀 wrote: > When a company president writes in a company-wide email distribution > list (or even more public, say including customers, press, ...) that > "several individuals shared with me that members of dept. X are > abusive" (say in a thread why the company president thinks that dept. X > must be restructured), what do you think that leaves as a impression of > the dept. X? That. > If the company president later writes "I didn't even think these > allegations are true", does that make it better? Would you want to work > under that company president (in dept. X or elsewhere)? Also this. > Is it better if a project leader does that on a world-wide public > mailing list? And this. > Should we expect in a mail about the technical committee a repeat of > allegations that the technical committee was bought by Canonical/Red > Hat/others, that the committee abused processes to push systemd, that > the committee willfully ignored processes to force usrmerge, ...? After > all such allegations continue to be made by project members (not even > random community members) just a few days ago (I guess bitter rearguard > battles were promised and people want to deliver...). Also. Really sad this is. Or probably a clusterfuck even. I'm considering starting a GR to... do what? That I am not sure yet. But this is really really bad. >1000 packages made it through NEW in 2025 alone, yet we are where we are. I'm truely disgusted. And I'm thankful for the professionalism of the current FTP delegates that we will have a 13.2 release this weekend! You rock. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ We are not moving into a 1.5C world, we are briefly passing through it in 2024. (James Hansen)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature