Re: Proposal: GR to deal with effects of a personal dispute
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 07:26:03PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sven Luther <luther@debian.org> wrote: [...]
> > The main point you are missing, that if you remove the suspension, and
> > debian claims something about the fault of the previous events to be
> > shared (which nobody disputes they are), then the list behaviour become
> > no more a problem than for other DDs waging random flamewars. [...]
>
> So if the GR contained: "2. Responsibility for the previous events is
> shared." then that is an end to it, in your opinion?
Sure, this is all i am asking. Not sure why everyone translates this to
"i won"t be satisfied if i don't get my way", which is more what the
other side has been showing, but then as i said, people judge me not on
what i say, but on what they believe i say.
> > > 4. Evading the suspension will be regarded as a second offence of
> > > header-forgery on lists.debian.org and should result in immediate
> > > expulsion, as in the Debian Machine Usage Policies.
> >
> > Hey, this is not needed, i am a man of word, as i have shown with the 2
> > month ban, and this portrays me as an evil doer, which i reject.
> >
> > You don't need this clause.
>
> I hope we don't need that clause and I expect we don't need that
> clause, but I want to leave it there just in case, as a warning. It
> is not meant to portray anyone as an evil-doer - it is meant to record
> unambiguously that we're already (at least) one step along that path.
Well, just look at the mail on -curiosa, or the various folk who have
been probvoking me on irc (like pusling for example, but they are
others), and that the fact that Frans used to bash me at the most minor
occasion in bug reports, and being overly sensitive seeing offense where
no offense was meant.
The main problem is that this has reached such a dramatic proportion,
where everyone is quite jumpy, like i was over the kernel team thingy
earlier.
So a most neutral "we won't mention this issue again, and everyone doing
so will be warned, and if he persists <insert random punishment>"
Immediate expulsion for a single mention, could be too hard.
> > > 5. Discussion of Sven Luther is banned from all lists where he is
> > > suspended, because there is no right of reply.
> >
> > Why not simply join all list related issues in a common : discussion
> > about this dispute is banned from all lists, and let it be at that ?
>
> Because future -vote threads should be allowed to revisit this if
> people want.
Yes, this is also an important point for the above. I expect to be
proposing a reform of the expulsion process, and it will make sense to
look at the current mess as an example of what has gone bad. Some may
interpret that badly, and ask for immediate expulsion though,
accordyingto 4. above.
In general, i am sure most DDs can be reasonable, and distinguish
between speaking about the issue in a constructive way, in order to
advance some other issue, over repeated whining, don't you think ?
> [...]
> > They should not complain if they get forked if there is a refusal, nor
> > feel pissed if some other media is chosen, but i guess that is common
> > sense :)
>
> Indeed.
>
> > MJ, l like this proposal, i think you are too heavy weight on the
> > unneeded technicalities. A much simpler and straightforward solution
> > would be [...]
>
> Sorry, I feel that proposal is too simple - it does not protect the
> lists from others doing similar, or explain what will happen if you
Your proposal also don't protect the lists from others doing similar (if
i undertsood this well), it just protects then from me doing it.
> fail or succeed. (And actually, it doesn't do a few other things that
> you previously requested.) I regret that my proposal makes you a
> named special case, but the suspension already did that.
Indeed, and that is exactly the main reproach i have against this whole
mess. If everyone involved in it had been equally suspended, i would be
happy. I am not the sole responsible for this mess, why should i be the
only punished ? And a resolution which keeps this strong unfairness
exhibits the same problem as the previous resolutions.
> Hope that explains,
Yep, hope it is ok to discuss this here ...
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: