Re: Another level of agression ?
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 10:14:42AM -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 01:03:29PM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote:
> >>Sven Luther wrote:
> >>>>After some more pressure on IRC, your commit access has been restored.
> >>>It is not enough, i want the suspension revoked, since it was a stupid
> >>>decision, which has achieved nothing except worsen the situation, and
> >>>was taken contrary to the DAMs procedure, and in a shady and mysterious
> >>Oh come on Sven! This thread was about the accidential removal of your
> >>kernel team commit access. It has been restored since them. The problem
> >>is fixed.
> >The wider problem has been there since marsch last year or so, and it
> >was never fixed.
> And I am beginning to wonder if it ever can be fixed!
> >So, what will be done to solve this issue, or should it be left open
> >like a bleeding wound to fester and worsen so much longer ? Isn't it
> >time to solve this in a fair and human way, like it should have been
> >done last year ? And no, you cannot blame Anthony Towns for all the evil
> >this time around.
> It seems to me that there is plenty of blame to go around. I
> accept my fair share for everything I have written that has just
> prolonged the debate. But when a simple accident (removal of
> access) blows up into a rehash of all the accusations that should
> have died long ago, it looks like Sven will never let go of this
Yes, that is the problem, people are waiting for me to let go of the
issue, and make as if nothing, stay humbly back, and in a year come
back, as a sub-DD with always the threat that people will again hurt me
or try to expulse me or whatever.
> I do not mean to troll, but I do have a serious rhetorical question
> I would like you to consider. Sven has said "It is not enough." So,
> what is enough? I do not see total abdication as a viable option.
> It may take two to argue, but one can rehash previous disagreements
Well, the solution is easy enough.
Debian says :
In the lamentable incident involving sven, and a handful of persons,
both parties share the responsability. The debian project upto now
chose to fully side with one party and unfairly punish the other.
This is not an acceptable way to handle such a problem, the debian
project presents his apologies to Sven for the one-sidedness of its
handling of this case, and accepts the apologies of Sven for the
numerous rehashing he was forced to make of this issue.
The Debian project furthermore commends Sven for the tentative of
reconciliation he has made, and notes that the other party of this
dispute was fully uninterested in resolving the issue.
All the unfair sactions are lifted, the d-i team choses to not forget
the old grudges, and will continue to stop Sven from working on d-i,
which is an attitude to be frowned upon, but so be it.
To which i respond something along the lines of :
I truefully regret that it took so long to get a fair resolution of
this conflict, and that the d-i leadership rejected my repeated offers
of conciliation, as well as the proposal of an in-RL meeting at
FOSDEM. I will not pursue this issue, and work outside of the d-i
framework for the part of the d-i related work i do.
I sincerely regret that i had to write so many mails, and thus have
bothered so many of the DDs, and sincerely present my apologies for
this, but i saw no other way out, and even asking for help, and trying
alternatives like the wiki pages didn't help.
From now on i will makes amends, and go back to contributing positive
technical stuff, and stop being a nuissance.
Everyone is happy, except those few who can't feel satisfied without
full bloody victory and will never recognize that just maybe they have
some part of responsability in this, but i guess everyone will have only
pity and contempt for those, and not allow them to hurt the project and
fellow DDs like they did in the future, and everyone will go back to
happily coding ever after.
Easy, isn't it, and an honourable and honest thing to do. Why is it so
easy ? And why do so many feel that the only response to this is hate
and rejection, and (ab)use of force and power to solve this ?
It all could have been solved a year ago, if there was a real will for
it. I know i showed such a will, but it was not matched by the other
As you say, it takes two to argue, but it also takes two for