Re: Proposal: GR to deal with effects of a personal dispute
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:29:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 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.
Yet, i was the only punished. Why is that ?
> > 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 kept asking for a fair trial.
> 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
how can you justify people getting so angry when i asked to be handed
> > 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.
Well, given that all was in the hand of frans, i can tell you that if
the situation where inversed, and i had all the possibility to solve it,
and was offered a conciliation, i would have jumped on it.
This is because i am a good guy, probably too good, which is why i
> > > 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.
All or nothing ? Again, this is FUD. In may 2006, i proposed a
reasonable compromise to Steve, involving me stopping from posting on
the debian-boot mailing list, but being able to work on d-i without
restriction. Does this sound all or nothing ? Even Steve Langasek said
it was a reasonable proposal (but *shurg* he did say).
> 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?
i can get nothing, i never could. It was always : *YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT IT
AND THAT IS IT*.
> Nobody claims that the process has to stop there and then. Rome wasn't
Heu, the current state seems pretty definitive. There is no place for a
continuation, and when i tried to propose a mediation, and a meeting at
debconf, people shouted at me.
> built in a day; and besides decades of negotiations, peace in the Middle
> East and Northern Ireland isn't completely reality yet either.
Right. But the death are dead.
> 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.
My end goal is to be handled fairly, to get blamed for the
responsability i have, but no more, and that both parties are equally
blamed. But this was apparently too much to ask.