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

Re: Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

Hi Guilherme,

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:46:25PM -0300, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> Em Ter, 2006-03-14 às 11:26 +1100, Anand Kumria escreveu:
> > uol.com.br aren't willing to listen to our requests for assistance and
> > we aren't able to work around them (by sending out probes during the
> > course of last year) to determine where the problem is.
> I have offered help with dealing with them several times on
> #debian-lists and yet nobody cared to provide me with any information so
> that I could do anything.

Unfortunately my archives of #debian-lists are not very extensive (only 
3 months worth) and I'm not often online (only 90% of the time), so I must 
have missed your offer.

Had I known I would have taken you up on your offer, since there are
many other productive things I could be doing.

> > I'm aware of a number of other groups who are on the verge of taking
> > similiar action. So, if you are a customer now would be the best time to
> > bring this problem to their attention.
> The best time for such a thing for me would have been previously to
> being unsubscribed from all Debian lists I followed and posted to. After
> having all my work messed up with, why should I care?

Why should you care that an organisation you choose to do business with
inflicts harm upon others? That isn't really a technical question, it is 
more a moral question.  Obviously my actions are intended to bias your
thinking and your answer in a particular direction.

> Really, even though UOL does not respond, does inflicting this kind of
> thing on their users seem right? 

Well that is the judgement call I made.  I'm aware that a number of
listmasters disagree with this method.  And a number agree with it.  
On balance I believe our efforts to resolve this have been extensive and 
that this is the best option available to us.

I'm not (yet) infallible and I'm, it should go without saying but I'll
make it explicit, happy to submit to a review of this decision.  

Particularly if the technical-committee, project leader or the
developers (via a GR) wanted this decision overturned. [ I think that is
the heirarchy of the appeals process but, again, I could be mistaken ].

> You are punishing people which have nothing to do with the problem. 

Since technical workarounds have failed and, despite attempts to 
initiate contact, there isn't any means to communicate with the system 
administrators - only the customers of uol.com.br have any influence. 

It is unfortunate you've been caught in the cross-fire and I wish it
weren't so. I also wish there was a technical means to resolve this
problem as well as someone from uol.com.br willing to respond.

But it looks like neither of us will have our wishes granted.



 `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to
  its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are
  forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how
  holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --"

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: