[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Censorship in Debian

Hello project,

It's very sad to read about what's going on.

I know that there's been at least another case, in which DAM and AH
have acted outside their mandate, threatening with project
expulsion, and choosing very selectively with whom they communicate.
I know, because I was being targeted.

Neither DAM nor AH (the same people still active today) made
a single attempt to hear me. None of my e-mails to either DAM or AH
were ever answered.

Instead, DAM ruled a verdict, and influenced other people to the
point that "because DAM ruled" was given as a reason for other
measures. This was an unconstitutional abuse of DAM's powers, and in
the case of AH, the whole mess also bordered on libel. Among others,
the current DPL Chris Lamb promised a review in due time, but
nothing ever happened.

It's not going to be a constructive use of anyone's time to attempt
to establish transparency into issues of the past, and I've
disengaged anyway, as a result.

But we, as a project, need to ensure that there is more transparency
moving forward. And I think it would be wise to review the way that
DAM and AH operate. We need to ensure they stick to protocol, and
are held accountable for the use of their powers.

Thanks for your attention,

 .''`.   martin f. krafft <madduck@d.o> @martinkrafft
: :'  :  not-so-proud Debian developer
`. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduck
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems

Attachment: digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital GPG signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)

Reply to: