Re: Public request that action be taken at whoever abused their technical power to remove me from the kernel team at alioth.
On Tuesday 29 May 2007 09:59, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 09:36:47AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> > You might want to consider developing a web page with careful
> > analysis of evidence and arguments, reviewing it carefully over
> > a period of weeks until you are certain it stands alone and does
> > not require repetitive emails to shore it up, and then posting
> > a single email with request for review by whomever you believe
> > has the power to effect action in your favor. At that point,
> > if you choose, it would not be unreasonable to link to said
> > website in your sig.
>
> You mean, like :
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/FransPopAndOthersVs%2eSvenLutherIssu
>e?highlight=%28SvenLuther%29
>
> Didn't help, and that page is now almost 7 months old.
Sven,
That page does not have careful analysis of evidence and arguments,
was obviously not carefully reviewed over a period of time, does not
stand alone, does require repetitive emails to shore it up, and is
not linked from your sig. In short, it fails to meet the overwhelming
majority of the specified criteria. Therefore, in answer to your
question whether I mean a page like that, the answer is no.
That page is garbage.
You need to apply the same brain power that you apply to technical work.
Decide how to structure your argument, decide what to include and what
to exclude, present it carefully, review and refine it over a period of
weeks.
One possibility, loosely based on anglophone legal procedure (IANAL):
* Introduction - briefly outlining the alleged wrong and what remedy you
think should be had. Should also motivate the reader to continue reading
rather than merely annoying the reader. Should denote the person or
persons whom you believe have the power to grant you the remedy.
* Facts - the events, relationships, rights, duties, etc which you allege
show that you were wronged and that you have a right to your proposed
remedy.
* Authorities - the rules, traditions, constitutions, written laws, common
(unwritten) laws, etc. The authorities must first establish the wrong,
i.e. that you had a right - perhaps just the right to be left alone -
which someone had a duty to observe and which right that someone breached.
The authorities must second establish that in light of the wrong, you have
a right to your proposed remedy from the power. (For example, if I were
to sue the US Government, I might be able to show that I was wronged but
depending upon the facts I might not have a right to a remedy from a US
court.)
* Evidence - that which tends to establish the facts you allege. This
will probably be mostly links to emails but could also include new
posted statements by yourself or others.
* Argument - not childish whining but a carefully thought out presentation
that shows (a) that the evidence proves the facts and (b) that the facts
show a wrong under cited authority and (c) that cited authority gives you
the right to your proposed remedy for that wrong (d) from the person or
persons whom you believe have the power to grant you the remedy.
* Conclusion - briefly summarizing the alleged wrong, reemphasizing a few key
points of the case, and a reassertion of the remedy which you think should
be had. Should again denote the person or persons whom you believe have
the power to grant you the remedy.
That's the order you present it. It's obviously not the order you think
about it. You start with the evidence, figure out what facts you can
prove, and then determine whether there are any authorities establishing
both the existence of a wrong against you and your right to a remedy from
some power.
When written, reviewed, and refined to the best of your ability, you send the
URL to the person or persons whom you believe should grant you the remedy,
optionally with a cc to -project. The relevant power could be the DPL, the
DAMs, all DDs for a GR, or even a court of law. I don't know. That's up to
you to figure out, optionally with the assistance of friends or an attorney.
I would further suggest creating your web page somewhere (a) under your total
control and (b) not using Debian resources. One doesn't steal a sheet of
paper from the judge to file a complaint. It's a trivial offence but it's
just not smart. However it might be reasonable to post a very brief balanced
mention of the dispute to the Debian Wiki, with a link to your page and space
for others to post links to opposing views if they choose.
If for some reason it is not possible to do as suggested - if something in
the chain of evidence, facts, authorities, and powers is inadequate - then
you don't have a case for the remedy you desire. You kick yourself and get
on with your life, and you stop whining on the mailing lists.
--Mike Bird
Reply to: