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

Re: Proposal: GR to deal with effects of a personal dispute

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 08:47:26PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 07:10:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:41:28AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:47:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > > No, you are just a DD whose access to lists has been suspended.
> > > 
> > > A sub-DD all the same, what about all those others who participated in
> > > those flamewars ?
> > 
> > Sven, with all due respect, please do not try to be party and judge at
> > the same time. Not only does that not work, it also makes you look
> > rather bad.
> Wouter, i am just pointing out that there are more than one to
> participate in a flamewar,

We all know that, so that doesn't exactly help anyone.

> and pinpointing me is more of the same injustice which is at the heart
> of this mess.

Maybe so; but OTOH, if you keep pointing fingers to other people, then
that doesn't exactly help resolve the situation; on the contrary.

I'm not saying you're wrong if you claim other people did something
wrong; I'm only saying you're not helping anyone or anything by doing

> Notice that if the situation where inversed, and i was on the winning
> side, i would have said exactly the same. That said, if the situation
> where inversed this issue would be solved since ages or would never have
> arrised.

You can't know that. It may very well be that in such a situation the
other end wouldn't want a compromise.

> > I understand you want to be a Debian Developer again, with all rights
> > and privileges which that implies, but can we please take this process
> > one step at a time? First, find a way out of the current situation that
> > gives you voting and upload rights again without pissing off others.
> Exact. That is the problem. The fact that people would get pissed by the
> situation being solved fairly is in itself an indication that there is a
> problem beside myself. 

I'm not contesting that; all I'm saying is that your all-or-nothing
approach does little to help alleviate the problem.

The fact is, currently you can't get it all; so I suggest you take your
losses and deal with what you /can/ get. After all, a bit is better than
nothing at all, isn't it?

Nobody claims that the process has to stop there and then. Rome wasn't
built in a day; and besides decades of negotiations, peace in the Middle
East and Northern Ireland isn't completely reality yet either.

If you want to say that your end goal is to get more than what you'll
get out of this, then I understand that, and I don't think anyone can
object to that; but if you want your immediate goal to be more, then
sorry, but you won't get that.

Shaw's Principle:
	Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will
	want to use it.

Reply to: