Re: Sven Luther, report of the mediation attempt and further actions
Oh well, i guess it is ok for me to reply to a few points on this.
Anthony, i asked that exclusively Fabio did reply to my mails, because you
have proven to not be able to be neutral and objective in this. Should i ask
you now to ban yourself from the lists for as long as i am banned :) ?
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 06:05:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> [-private bcc'ed]
>
> As well as this mail on -project, Sven's also written to both -kernel
> and -powerpc:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2007/01/msg00012.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2007/01/msg00042.html
I have indeed.
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 09:30:01AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 05:47:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 05:38:19PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 12:44:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > > < skipped private comment from Anthony Towns where he asks me to be banned
> > > > > from debian lists >
> > > > I said i would, and i will do it. I am a man of word, contrary to others.
> > > > But as there seem to be a technical and ethical problem in banning someone
> > > > from the lists, i propose a self-imposed not access to the lists until end of
> > > > february, with the lone exception of problems i am currently working on (like
> > > > the infamous xserve/udev/d-i/initramfs bug), and the BTS.
> > > < skipped hypocrit private comment from Anthony Towns where he denied me the
> > > right to participate in the discussion about if i was to be baned or not >
> > > < skipped comment from Anthony Towns, where he believes mediation is useless >
>
> The context Sven summarises above was, in fact:
Well, it was on private, and i posted only my own answers to -project. Thanks
for providing the bits i snipped.
> > On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 05:38:19PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 12:44:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > Do you, in fact, accept the result of this mediation?
> > > I said i would, and i will do it. I am a man of word, contrary to others.
> > > But as there seem to be a technical and ethical problem in banning someone
> > > from the lists, i propose a self-imposed not access to the lists until end of
> > > february, with the lone exception of problems i am currently working on (like
> > > the infamous xserve/udev/d-i/initramfs bug), and the BTS.
> > Sven, in the three days since the post quoted above, you've made
> > twenty-nine posts to -private, including nine posts in this particular
> > subthread. While that isn't cause to doubt that you're fundamentally a
> > man of your word, you aren't managing to keep it in this case.
> > While that remains the case, I don't think further mediation or
> > arbitration is likely to be useful.
>
> The "result of the mediation" referred to was:
>
> > The main problem so far is that Sven still brings the issue over and over:
> > this does not help at all, and the only effect of this behaviour is growing
> > the conflict.
> >
> > With this e-mail, I'm asking who is concerned to take this action in the
> > interest of Sven, the d-i team and the whole Debian:
> >
> > * Ban for 2 months Sven Luther from all the debian-mailing lists.
> > (I am not sure that it is also possible for debian-vote)
> > If Sven bug-reports or IRC conversations in the next two months will
> > still contain references to the revocation of his SVN access to the d-i
> > repository or to this ongoing dispute, I'll ask for his permanent ban
> > from Debian mailing-lists.
> >
> > To make it more clear: Sven, if you don't stop with those non-technical
> > e-mails and messages the issue won't be solved. When I proposed myself as
> > mediator, I knew that I couldn't make the magic happen, but at least I need
> > some collaboration from you as well as from the d-i team. If somebody did
> > not want to apply your patch, or if you do not like what somebody wrote
> > about you, or if your opinion does not match the others' one, please ignore
> > them. My hope is that a ban from debian mailing lists for two months could
> > help you to understand the "weight" that your messages have in this
> > context.
>
> (quoted with permission)
>
> I don't think it's productive to move this conversation from -private
> to -project; but given it has been, it seems appropriate to give people
> following this more than just Sven's side of the story.
Why not ? Seriously, i am going to be absent from the lists for 2 months, and
people deserve to know why.
> > Anyway, i take this as announcement that i will now retire from debian until
> > end of february, and not post on debian mailing lists until the end of
> > february, with a few lone exceptions :
> >
> > 1) If someone bashes me on irc or on mailing lists, i will ask you as DPL to
> > immediately apply the ban to him too, and if you fail to do so in a timely
> > fashion, i will stop my self-imposed ban, and immediately ask for your
> > revocation as DPL.
> >
> > 2) I will write a mail on a few chosen lists (like debian-powerpc) to
> > announce my decision. If someone else than Fabio replies to these, i will
> > ask you as DPL to extend the ban to them, and if you fail to do so in a
> > timely fashion, i will stop my self-imposed ban, and immediately ask for
> > your revocation as DPL.
>
> Sven, the mediation was an attempt to help you and the d-i team work
> together effectively in future. If you don't want to accept it, you
> don't have to; but if you do, you cannot use it as a bargaining chip to
> threaten other developers if they don't follow your demands.
Anthony, i don't ask you or anyone else to follow my demands, i ask *YOU* to
be honest, and apply the same rules which apply to me to other parties
involved in the dispute. It is clear that you are unable to not be one-sided
in this dispute, you have proven so amply over these past months, and by the
fact that you insistently asked me to respect the ban, even though many where
against it. You have not even replied to Frans's mail, in which he said
basically that he would not care about the mediation in any case, if it was
not in his favour.
As thus, i don't believe that you are dign to be our DPL, you have lied to me
in the non-free firmware issue, asking me delay my call for votes, just to let
Manoj hurry the vote in a direction he wanted. Debian doesn't need a DPL who
is not able to keep his word, who let a dispute like the one between me and
Frans stay open and disruptive for over 8 months of time. Debian doesn't need
a DPL who is unable to be at least a bit fair, which you have just again shown
in this thread that you where not, accepting everything from Frans, and siding
fully against me one more time.
Anthony, you are the DPL, in thus you speak for the whole of Debian, this
gives you more responsabilities as if you where not DPL. If you are not upto
it, please step down now, and let someone else take your place.
> > 3) I ask the permission to take Frans email public, so that everyone will
> > see how i hold to my world and he does not.
>
> As a developer, you're expected to respect the privacy of posts made to
> the -private list; if you think a post should be made public, you need
> to ask the author for permission, not anyone else. You haven't done that
And Frans doesn't read private ? Well, to bad for him, you did manage to read
the sentence where i wrote "I ask the permission to take Frans email public",
right ? Since he is the only one who can give that permission, who do you
believe that sentence is meant to ? Also remember, Frans repeteadly ranted
about not wanting private copies of list mail.
> for my mail above; I hope that is a one off aberration and not something
> you'll repeat.
I posted none of your mail above, but only my own words, for which i don't
need to ask your permission.
Again, you are being unfair to me, you accuse me of things i have not done, i
ask you to immediately stop that, apologize for the misleadings you have given
in this post, or step down as DPL, and let someone who is up to the
responsabilities involved take your place.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: