Re: Dealing with the NM people
Hello Christoph, others,
Sorry for the long mail, and tedious (especially the definitions), but I
don't want to be accused again of using inexact words.
On Friday 02 July 2010 10:23:37 Christoph Berg wrote:
> I'm preaching to the choir here, but: if you are mailing with other
> people, and especially with those from the NM front-desk who might
> help you with getting through the NM process, it is neither helpful
> nor acceptable to use sentences like "Don't be silly" as the opening
> statement, being "a bit fed up with your unofficial policies", or
> doing finger-pointing on other NMs being processed at the same time.
> Please calm down, and come back in a few months. Thank you.
1) Re: unnofficial policies
I don't find acceptable that you apply unnoficial policies that are not
clearly stated in the webpages, and you had at least two:
a) the one of the photo ID, and more importantly:
b) that you can't apply to DD without being DM first, when the web pages
*clearly* state that it's highly recommendable but not mandatory, and I'm an
"unofficial Debian Maintainer" anyway: "It is highly recommended that you
become familiar with the role of Debian Maintainer and apply for this role
before applying to become a Debian Developer", from
You can't turn down my application just because of an unofficial policy
contrary to "official" texts. And now I applied for DM anyway, but more
importantly, I was unofficial (not appearing anywhere but in changelog
entry) maintainer of OpenSceneGraph for more than 6 months. Why does matter
that much that I'm "official maintainer" or just do the work just because I
care for Debian? My compromise with Debian is the same, becoming official
DM is just a bureaucratic step.
So that unnofficial policy that you invented is not good not fair to the
applicants. It's like going on an exam when the teachers put a paper in the
wall telling to study chapters 1 to 10, and you find that you have also
questions from chapters 11 and 12.
To add insult to injury, I asked in the list before if signatures by DM were
as valid as DD, by other words, if they were "Debian Members" or not (which
is all what some documents say), and pointing the incoherence of the photo
ID. And you replied me thanking for spotting the thing about the photo ID
and removing it, and also telling that maybe I was confused and meant that I
wanted to be DM instead of DD or something like that. You knew that you
were going to deny my application as DD if I was not DM, so why didn't you
just tell it to me then? You only told me that I should *consider* applying
for DM first, and to adopt some packages was *because you didn't find me in
any "Uploaders" field*.
2) Re: "Don't be silly"
2.a) Some definitions:
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/silly: "3b: exhibiting or
indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment <a very silly
mistake>; 3c: trifling, frivolous"
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frivolous: "2a: lacking in
2.b) You know that the person to whom I replied was mocking my previous work
in a way which I also don't find acceptable. I don't think that he is
stupid ("foolish", in some of the acceptions/meanings of "silly"), so the
only explanation that I find for his behaviour is "lacking in seriousness"
(not reading my explanations in the application; and knowing that what he
was attributing to me was utterly ridiculous), and I explained exacly this
in my reply, saying "silly" as a kind of "do not joke or mock me", and
explaining again my accomplishments in the case that he didn't understand
them properly. Not trying to understand me (i.e., ignoring my applicaiton
and the efforts that I'm doing to help Debian) is "lack of seriousness";
mocking me on these grounds is insulting me, in a way that it's more serious
than calling someone "silly".
2.c) I thought that I was talking to hardened developers in a community
famous for its flame wars, not having tea with the Queen of England. I
didn't know that using the word "silly" would cause such a distress.
3) Re: finger-pointing
3.a) Some definitions again:
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/finger+pointing: "the act of
making explicit and often unfair accusations of blame"
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfair: "marked by injustice,
partiality, or deception"
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defaming: "2: to harm the
reputation of by libel or slander"
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slander: "1: the utterance of
false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evade: "2: to take refuge in
escape or avoidance; 2c: to avoid answering directly : turn aside"
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wiles: "1: a trick or stratagem
intended to ensnare or deceive"
3.b) So I didn't finger-point applicants to NM being processed at the same
time, if I was doing so the conclusion would be "they don't deserve being
Debian Developers" or "they are doing bad things", when I clearly say
otherwise in each case:
3.b.1) "And I'm not at all against him being approved, in fact I think that
he more than worths it."
3.b.2) "I think that he's an excellent fellow to have in Debian"
3.c) If I'm finger-pointing at somebody, "the act of making *explicit*
accusations", is to you (you as in Front Desk, in the case that you also
misunderstand that 'you'); on the basis that you (Front Desk or some of its
members, I don't know) are:
3.c.1) being *silly* (this time as in "exhibiting or indicative of a lack of
common sense or sound judgment") when mocking applicants' work;
3.c.2) *unfair* when judging applicants with different --and apparently
whimsical-- criteria (which is one of the worst things that a judge can do,
and you are the judges telling who can come in and who can not);
3.c.3) *defamatory* / *slenderers* (telling that "someone in the choir" is
finger-pointing other NM applicants, when I didn't).
3.c.4) *evading with wiles* the real issue (whether I'm a valid applicant to
NM or not), "preaching to the choir" and not addressing me directly, with
the excuses that you (Cristoph) mentioned in your mail, which are partly
false and partly bad excuses.
4) Therefore I claim that your behaviour ("your" as in Christoph Berg's, and
eventually other people participating in the decision regarding the
publication of this e-mail on the basis of our communication regarding the
application to NM) is unacceptable, and that you (Christoph Berg and the
rest of people participating) are not worthy of being trusted with the
important task of judging NM applicants.
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <email@example.com>