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

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:
> Hi,
> 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 
http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint .

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 <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>

Reply to: