[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0

On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 05:54:32PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 10:40:39AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Start by the people who are already a Debian developer and are even
> > > more rude than me. Or is it allowed to be offensive when you are a
> > > debian developer? Or do you have to agree with the person being rude
> > > before they can rude???
> > 
> > Curious defense.  There are already rude people who are Debian
> > developers, therefore: 1) you don't believe you were wrong in the way
> > you handled the situation, and should not change your tone; 
> No, I was merely trying to say this isn't a reason to not make me a
> Debian developer.

Yes it is. As I said earlier, two wrongs do not make a right. I mean,
someone set fire to a train (!) while in motion and carrying passengers
here a few nights ago (luckily it was on the other side of town), so
does that mean it's OK for me to?

> > 2) no one
> > has any right to require you to behave in a manner befitting the
> > project before letting you in, because you have as much right to be a
> > Debian developer as the other gasbags that have already been allowed in.
> Yes, they can do that, but they should do with the other people first.

So what, you're demanding a GR?

Look, just because people have mailed you saying "yes, good stuff"
doesn't mean that an overwhelming wave of developers support you. The
ones who don't are hardly likely to mail you. Trust me, I once thought I
had most of Debian supporting me. Ask anyone about how many people
supported me in the NM flamewars for a reply in the form of a good
hearty laugh.

> > >> I'm simply stating, publicly, that I think it's important
> > >> that NM applicants exhibit the capacity for civil discourse on the lists,
> > >> and that a tendency to be abusive on the lists should be a factor in the
> > >> DAM's decision (which it may already be).
> > 
> > > Then DAM has already failed with previous applicants.
> > 
> > Jeroen, think about it.  Flamewars follow you whenever you post.  Even
> > if you do believe you're right in showering verbal abuse down on people
> > who don't meet your standards for "freeness", why would the DAM want to
> > give an account to someone who comes into such sharp conflict with such
> > a large segment of the Debian community?  
> I never said this was right.

Which part are you contesting? FWIW, I've only seen you in the one
(glibc) flamewar, but you instigated that flamewar itself. Not a good

> > If you're unwilling to concede that there are times when zealotry is
> > contrary to the goals of Debian, and that the goals of Debian *should
> > take precedence* when you are acting as a member of this community, then
> > there will be DDs standing up to advocate against you so long as you
> > persist in applying.
> And enough developers to advocate for me and are a zealot themself. At
> least that was my impression when I speak with a lot of developers.

Jeroen, a few have come forward to say that you're good. That doesn't
mean that the rest of them aren't sitting around thinking to themselves
(and others, but not directly to you) that you aren't.

Just have a think about all this. If you were at a conference, and
someone said he had a problem with non-free software, would you abuse
him face-to-face, and then take on all the developers who told you to
chill? If you have a problem, say so quietly, in a manner that isn't
either a) abusive or b) trolling.

> Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org
> Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
> IRC: jeroen@openprojects

I thought you were a glibc developer, not just a "supporter"? Why isn't
this in your sig?

Daniel Stone						    <daniel@sfarc.net>
<luca> $beers_owed{luca} *= 2; /* much better like this */

Attachment: pgpRelEPxqxkd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: