Re: Dealing with the NM people
Hi,
Thank you, Dodo. I already wrote about this in debian-project mailing list,
should anybody be interested:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/07/msg00007.html
Cheers.
On Friday 02 July 2010 14:27:28 Ďoďo wrote:
> Manuel,
>
> thanks. Very nice email.
>
> I think you wrote what many people would like to write as well.
>
> I just stopped to care about being Debian Dev/Maint.
> Some years ago I wanted to become first Developer and then Maintainer
> as well. I was told, that I need to be Maintainer first.
> So I was following the written rules about becoming the Maintainer.
> But one of the "important guys" wrote me, that written rules
> and reality is a bit different..
>
> I do not really need to be part of community, where people behaves
> like that ....
>
> So I continue to maintain and work on my 2 packages (asking someone
> else to upload them), from time to reporting some bugs and
> I do not care any more. There are many other projects where people
> are may be not very polite, but at least they are following the agreed
> and written rules ...
>
>
> good luck
>
> Jozef
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
>
> <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> > seriousness"
> >
> > 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 reputation"
> >
> > - 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.
> >
> >
> > Regards.
> > --
> > Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-newmaint-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> > listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive:
> > 201007021405.47413.manuel.montezelo@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/201007021405.47413.manuel.montezelo@gmail.com
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>
Reply to: