Re: Public request that action be taken at whoever abused their technical power to remove me from the kernel team at alioth.
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 11:49:23AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> 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,
Yes, because i chose to forget old grudges, and show only positive and
constructive effort, well in the original page at :
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/FransPopAndOthersVs.SvenLutherIssue/SvenLuther
that is.
> 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.
Ok. But as said, i worked on a page which showed my positive
contribution to the debian project, and the d-i subproject in
particular, despite the stress i was under.
Frans replied : FUCK OFF, and the worst crap ever.
> 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.
Sorry for giving the wrong link, see :
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/FransPopAndOthersVs.SvenLutherIssue/SvenLuther
> 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.
Sure, as said, my original page linked above, follows some of these
issues, but enphasing the constructive and positive work i have done,
and putting aside the old grudges, in hope of a positive resolution.
The other page evolved with the knee jerk reaction of the other party to
hit, and the terror methods of one Chealer who believed himself master
of the wiki.
> 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
Yep, i have thougth about this too. The fact that i needed to consider
this only proves my point in this whole mess.
> 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.
Its no offense, i was part of debian back then, and it was the natural
vector for such a mess.
> 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.
You are wrong, you still need a impartial judge. Tell me where in debian
i do find such ? That is the main problem, any argumentation is just
lost time without a fair hearing and an impartial judge.
If you can find an impartial judge which will not be dismissed by debian
or blackmailed, then i will take the time to do so.
Sadly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: