On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:06:32AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:45:46PM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote: > > Sven Luther wrote on 01/05/2006 08:21: > > > On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 02:20:09AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > > > > >>The reason that I did not inform you was because things were already very > > >>heated at the moment and because you were at that time still very > > >>concerned about the welfare of your mother. I thought it was better not > > >>to add to that. > > > > > > And what have you gained ? What did you expect would happen once i > > > noticed ? > > > > He thought he would gain not adding more pressure to you. He was wrong > > and he apologized for that. Stop picking on him, please. > > My believe is that their intentions was to get ride of me, and by > doing so in one of the worst possible moment of my live, ... Please, Sven. The first step in getting along with people is 'assume they have the best intentions, until proven otherwise.' I do not see any prove why getting rid of you would be Frans' intention. In fact, Frans has publicly stated that this was _not_ his intention, but that in fact something else was. If you try to second-guess people and try to tell them that they're really trying to do something else than what they're publically claiming they're doing, the only thing you'll gain is that they'll be more careful in working or communicating with you in the future. In the end, you'll end up on an island on your own. In the absense of an explanation from Frans, I can see why you would think that your commit access would be an attack on your person. After being given an explanation, however -- and one that makes sense -- I don't think it's fair to continue to do so. > > > Apologizes accepted, but this is not enough. > > > > Either you accept the apology or you don't. There is no "but". > > Well, the real problem is that they don't admit that they had no valid reason > to remove the commit access, and that it was an abuse of their power. It was not. Frans acted in good faith; he made a mistake, but admitted that. [...] > > > So, this is a first step, but i need more. I need : > > > > > > - the commit access being restored. > > > > I would second that request, if it was more humble. You don't "need" > > commit access restored, you just want it. So please be so kind to > > actually state the true thing. > > Well. I am not sure. The removal of the commit access means that it is > acceptable in debian to hinder the work of someone just because he has > annoyed you or you personally dislikes him. It doesn't "mean" anything. Mistakes can't "mean" anything. > Would you think that someone from the DAM/DSA disliking a fellow DD is enough > to remove his upload rights ? No. Luckily, that never happened. As is the same for d-i commit access. Frans didn't remove your commit rights because you annoyed him; he removed your commit rights because you publically and dramatically announced that you would no longer work on the PowerPC port for d-i. When people publically state that they'll retire from Debian, they usually lose their upload rights in less than a day. So there's no difference here. [...] > Also, one could argue that the d-i svn repo is the preffered form of > modification for d-i work, since this is clearly where and how the d-i work > is done, and since i contributed GPLed code to it, banning me from the repo > has obvious legalese implication debian should be ashamed of. Err, no. [...] I'm not going to comment on the rest of your mail; you get my point. Please calm down. You're overreacting. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature