Discussion:
Renewed appeal to the technical committee about the FransAndCo.Vs.Sven dispute
(too old to reply)
Sven Luther
2006-11-24 09:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Hello,

== Introduction ==

6 Month ago i already had contacted the tech comitte in hope that the current
mess between frans and a few other members of the d-i team and me can be
solved. The tech comitte refused a ruling on this issue.

We are many months later, and the issue is not even near to being solved, and
i thus reinvoke the technical comitte.

First, what is the issue exactly. I am totally at a loss to understand what it
is exactly what is reproached me, and feel that i am unfairly handled. It is
very difficult to try to solve the issue if there is absolutely no feedback on
what is actually the issue, and the DPL is not helping in this.

== Fairness of the technical comittee ruling ==

In order to keep the objectivity and fairness of the technical comittee
ruling, all those technical comittee members who have a vested interest in one
side of this matter, and as thus are not able for whatever reason to make an
objective and fair decision, should abstain from participating in this
issue.

== Is it a private or technical matter ==

The first problem we have, is to understand if this dispute is a private issue
or a technical issue. I know that Frans is trying to say it is a technical
one, but he gave no valid reason for it, and others do believe it is a private
issue.

If it is a private dispute, then it is the right of the technical comitte to
intervene, and to force the d-i team to reactivate my d-i svn commit access,
since it is not ok for someone to use technical use of debian ressources in
order to further a private feud. Especially as this has caused me a technical
disagreement and seriously hinders my ability to work on d-i for the best of
our users.

If it is a technical issue, then it should be judged on technical terms, and
a reason for the removal of the svn commit access should be clearly given in
technical terms. Furthermore, the history of these past 6 month clearly show
that any imagined reason for removing the commit access is clearly
out-weighted by the hindrance caused by this decision.

So, in both case, and as will be detailed below, there is no valid reason to
support the removal of my svn commit right, and i thus ask for a timely
judgement of the technical comittee in my favour on this matter, for the
greater good of both debian and our users.

== Technical issues ==

What are the technical issues that i have been reproached ? Let's list the few
i have seen against me :

1) i do last minute changes, which break d-i.

This is pure diffamation without any real backing. I will be happy to
investigate all such detailed case. That said, even if there was a few case
of breakage caused by my commits, well error is human, and there is nothing
which could not have been fixed in minutes if there was a will to do so.
Naturally, saying nothing, and then coming with a barrage of reproaches and
agressive bashing is not the way to handle harmless errors.

2) the d-i team is unable to review my commits, because they have me
blaclisted.

Well, first, one could question the blacklisting in the first place, as an
associal behaviour, but lets not go into this. This is an argument that is
just an excuse, since it is easy enough to separate the svn commit logs from
other mailing list posts from me.

Furthermore, i wonder what the reasoning behind this reviewing is.
Especially given that i am the expert on powerpc d-i support, and we have
seen recent clueless guesswork from frans, who caused more breakage than did
any good. And even Colin Watson, who is more competent in matters powerpc,
introduced bugs in my patches, causing untested RC breakage.

Finally, such review could as easily be done on my svn commits, and could be
done before packages upload, which could be left to others than me.

Now, let's weight this two technical complaints against me, with the
constraints and hurdles cause to me by the current approach :

1) having no svn commit access is a pain, it causes regular svn conflicts,
which are difficult to fix, and have caused twice already the work i did to
get lost.

Well, i know that i could use tools like svk or git-svn to make this issue
less, but as i do more and more work, and the committers of my patch lag
behind, as has been the case recently, this cause additional work and need
for me to keep a huge open list of issues, often open since months.

In particular, the less than timely response time from the d-i team on bug
reports i provided has exacerbated this problem.

2) having no possibility to upload fixed packages commited to svn cause a
hurt to our ability to provide timely fixes to our users.

Well, not much to say here, in addition to the above causing me extra work
and lost time, which in turn limit the amount of fixes i can contribute to
d-i, this also has a negative impact on our users, especially for issues
where the ability to test fixes is limited, because the users has only a few
days before the server goes into production for example, which will be more
and more the case if we want to support for example IBM Power server
hardware.

3) the current approach causes unneeded work for other d-i team members, who
are forced to commit the patches, which takes them time they could better
spend on their own problems.

This has an additional problem, in that it forces frans to be in
communication with me, and since he seems unable to profesional and fair,
increases the risk of verbal and social escalation, but we will speak of
this more in the next part.

So, seeing this on the technical side, there are more drawbacks than benefit
from the current situation, and even the benefits are at best poor excuses.

If this is purely a technical issue, then there is no doubt that my svn commit
access should be re-activated ASAP, or at least the other side of this dispute
should clearly and publicly state what they reproach to me, in order to give
me a chance to fix it.

Since they failed to do so over the now over 6 months that this has been a
problem, it strongly lessens their position on this, and furthermore argue for
the restoration of the svn commit right.

Furthermore, i am still the defacto lead powerpc porter, as the d-i team was
not able to find someone else to do the work in all this time. Many persons
where considered, and if there would have been an actual replacement, i would
be happy to leave it to him, and work through him, but this is not the case.

People under consideration :

- Colin : has the technical knowledge and interest, but sadly lacks
the time to follow the d-i powerpc port as neatly as he should. When he
replaced me in april, i warmly welcomed him, and hinted him to all the
issues that where left open and needed attention, but he was not able to
find the time to play the role as he should, leading to a full d-i
breakage less than a month after the fact. I also doubt he has access to
the huge array of powerpc subarches i have.

- Wouter : he has taken over the d-i daily builds from Colin, and is mostly
doing a good job of it. He is also active in m68k and other areas, and as
far as i know, didn't show any interest in becoming more than the d-i
daily build operator.

- Holger : he claims he didn't work on powerpc/d-i because of me, but
reality shows that he was little active even before these problems
started, and he contributed nothing during the time after my initial
kicking out of the project, where i was busy attending to the burial of my
mother, and later concentrated on non-d-i areas. He was our oldworld
expert, and the poor state of the oldworld port speaks poorly of his
contributions, and furthermore his highly aggressive reaction against me
make him a very poor choice on this.

So, until today, i am the defacto powerpc d-i lead porter, and given the
failure of frans and co to find a suitable replacement to me, i reject their
right to not give me my rightful place.

Furthermore, the original "resignation" mail, was something which frans
provoked me in writing, at a moment where i was under personal distress, and
despite me begging him to be comprehensive because of this. This is i believe
one of the most abject of social behaviour i have ever encountered in debian,
even comparing to similar behaviour by Andrew Suffield and Jonathan/Ted
Walter.

== Personal issues reproached to me ==

So, given that there is ample proof that from the technical side the current
situation has no justification, and on the contrary causes more hurt to
everyone concerned (the d-i team, me, inoccent bystanders, our powerpc users,
...), we can only conclude that there is a personal reason for my svn commit
access to not be immediately restored.

Again, here, there is very little firm indication of what exactly is
reproached to me, and there is no clear way for me to try to fix it.

Furthermore, i believe that use of debian technical ressources for private
social warfare is anathema, and it would be perfectly in the right of the
technical comitte to rule that it be restablished on the analysis above.

That said, both frans and joeyh have probably threatened to lessen their
contribution to d-i if my svn commit right is restored. Well, i don't know
about frans, but joeyh clearly stated so publicly on the wiki pages.

So, what is it i am reproached, at least what i managed to find out over the
months of this dispute, none of which was evident and clearly stated.

1) I am not respectful enough of Frans.

Well, i am not sure how to take this. I don't think that being respectful of
someone should be any pre-requisite to being able to work on technical
debian issues.

Furthermore in order for someone to get respect, he has to very well earn
it. This is not the case of people refusing to even discuss technical issues
in public, or of people who respond to approaches to solve the issue by
"FUCK YOU" and "the biggest load of self-satisfied and self-centered crap
I've ever seen".

I am respectful to Frans for the work he does on d-i, he does a great job
coordinating the release, but he leaves his personal feud with me hinder his
job, and has shown the most abject social behaviour in this issue, and for
this, he cannot earn my respect.

2) I have to be extra nice to the d-i team.

Well, he asks this from me, and on the same time ressort to continuous and
unprovoked bashing of me, even in bug report and so. Well. I can understand
that he can get angry, the same way i get angry by some of his replies or
random posts he does in reply to other folk, but he can hardly expect me to
follow some standards he is unable to follow himself.

3) I have a social problem interacting with the d-i team.

Well, given how i tried hard to play nice on many occasions, and the kind of
reply i am getting from the d-i team, as you can see yourself on the wiki
pages about this issue, and on the little irc snipplets i added to that
page, i feel more than at this time a few of the d-i team members have a
social problem interacting with me (and a few others).

In particular, the original wiki page was an attempt to solve this in a
constructive and positive way, but was only replied with abuse, from Geert
first, then Holger, then Joeyh, and Frans said about it : "the biggest load
of self-satisfied and self-centered crap I've ever seen".

4) I should admit that this whole issue is mostly (or even fully for
certain) my fault.

Well. This position is sadly shared by Anthony Towns, and to a degree by
Steve Langasek, and is probably the reason why there was no or little
progress in this issue.

I have from the start recognized that i was back in spring under a personal
pressure and distress. I have apologized for the fact, asked for mediation
in this lamentable dispute, tried to fixe the issues i saw in me. I believe
i have succeded in this to a point, even though there is still place for
more progress.

On the other hand, neither frans nor joeyh, nor others, have ever shown the
least bit of regret for their actions, have fully rejected my attempts at
conciliation as well as the positive and constructive attempt i made with
the wiki page, describing it as the "the biggest load of self-satisfied
and self-centered crap I've ever seen", and you can also search up the
comments full of hatefullness from Geert and Holger, which they later
removed from the wiki page, but which are still visible in the history.

It seems to me that since the begining the faults are shared, that i
recognized my part of them, and tried to work to remove them, and in general
better my behaviour in these aspect. I may have succeeded to a point, or
not, but at least i made the effort. On the other side, they did never
recognize their part of the problem, and as thus could never apologize for
it, nor make any effort to work around the problem.

As thus, any ruling that insist that this is all and fully my fault, is
doomed to fail.

5) I constantly bring up the problem.

Well, if you go down to it and look at it, i lately almost never bring up
the problem, it is always in reaction to provocation by frans or other
actions by him that cause me to face the problem again.

I had thought that working on the BTS, and submitting patches would be
enough for me to ignore the issue, but given how frans started doing
agressive bashing in bug reports, and how those patches i sent are not
applied in a timely fashion, and how i then later get reproached by frans
the most minor of typo or problem, which are in part due to the situation he
himself setup, this is increasingly difficult.

6) i post too much on mailing lists.

Well, i agree about this. In spring i tried to abide toa
one-mail-per-thread-per-day policy, but i was told by both the d-i team and
the DPL that this had nothing whatsoever to do with the issue, and so i
abandoned this approach. On suggestion from people on irc, i started to
write the wiki page, in order for the information to go from a push to a
pull distribution media, but was in response hit by heavy abuse, and this
has brought absolutely nothing to solve the situation.

So, if we go over these points, it is clear that at the very least, the wrongs
are shared. It is my own belief that i have tried harder to solve the issue,
and that i was also wronger worse in these personal issues than the other
party in this dispute.

It also seem to me that as long as frans and co are not able to find it within
themselves to recognize their part of wrongs, let past issues be past, and
work positively together for the greater good, there is no way for this to be
solved, without exterior intervention.

Given the full support the DPL is giving frans and co, while he should be an
objective mediator, and that in general folk are rather in favour of not
intervening, and are counseling me to wait (for how long ? forever ?) i think
that there is no chance for this ever being solved.

== Conclusion ==

There is neither a technical reason for frans and co to refuse me the d-i svn
commit access, nor a social/personal reason.

There is no evidence that any action or waiting from my part will ever help in
this matter, as it is never the right time, nor is there any firm commitment
on a deadline, nor any recognition from the other party of their part of the
wrongs, which would help bring this forward in a positive way.

The issue has caused lost time for many persons, and is hurting both our
debian powerpc port as well as our powerpc users.

As thus, i strongly ask the technical comitte to intervene, so that there is
no more a technical hurdle which is in the way of me being able to fully and
most efficiently work on the d-i powerpc port.

And if it is really true, that some of the d-i team cannot work on d-i if i am
not humiliated and controlled like i am, i think we have a more serious
problem, and not one i am the cause of. In this case, i would question any
decision which would favour the other side of this dispute, without a well
justified technical reasoning. And i would question the honestity and fairness
of any tech comittee member who judge that it is right to favour frans and co
in a decision just because their work is judged more important to debian right
now and as thus it is judged that it is right that i should be made to suffer
just because they are not able let paste issues be paste, and have a mature
and professional behaviour in the d-i development matter.

And yes, i am suffering from this. While writing the wiki thing, i cried half
an hour before my computer, and was trully deseperate, just ask those who
where on irc at that time, not even counting the considerable extra stress
this caused me when i was at my mothers death-bed, and didn't really need
such.

== Links ==

The wiki page detailing most of these issues is at :

http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/FransPopAndOthersVs%2eSvenLutherIssue

It lacks recent developments, but should contain enough information to clearly
judge in these matters, i would be happy to add more stuff, but would rather
work on fixing bugs instead.
Ian Jackson
2006-11-24 11:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sven Luther
In order to keep the objectivity and fairness of the technical
comittee ruling, all those technical comittee members who have a
vested interest in one side of this matter, and as thus are not able
for whatever reason to make an objective and fair decision, should
abstain from participating in this issue.
Which TC members do you think have a `vested interest' ?

Ian.
Sven Luther
2006-11-24 11:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Sven Luther
In order to keep the objectivity and fairness of the technical
comittee ruling, all those technical comittee members who have a
vested interest in one side of this matter, and as thus are not able
for whatever reason to make an objective and fair decision, should
abstain from participating in this issue.
Which TC members do you think have a `vested interest' ?
Is Joey Hess not a Technical comittee member ? I don't think Frans Pop is
though, nor someone else of the d-i team. Ah, i must be wrong, it seems that
Joey Hess is not listed as tech ctte member.

Of the other members, believe both Steve Langasek, and Anthony Towns have
showed clear uncomprehension and one-sidedness about this issue, and i am not
sure they will be able to pass an objective judgement over this. Manoj
Srivastava also has been strongly aggressive against me about the non-free
firmware vote, which he manipulated in favour of his own position, maybe
unconciously.

If these three can take an objective view of these issues, fine, but i would
be strongly suspicious of their own emotival satbility on this issue, and thus
their ability to come to the fair judgement that is needed in this case.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
Ian Jackson
2006-11-24 11:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Sven Luther writes ("Re: Renewed appeal to the technical committee
[stuff]
I'm glad to see that I'm not on your list of `one-sided' people. Not
that I expect you to be pleased when I tell you this: the reason all
these people are disagreeing with you isn't because they're biased.
It's because of your intolerable behaviour.


I hereby propose the following resolution:


1. We note that Sven Luther has a dispute with the debian-installer
team; Sven feels that he should have access to the d-i svn
repository.

2. We note that the d-i team, who manage that repository, disagree.

3. Whether or not someone should be permitted commit access to a
repository is a social and political matter. Therefore we do not
have the power to overrule the d-i team on this question.

4. Nevertheless, we wish to state some opinions as we are
empowered to do by s6.1(5) of the constitution:

5. Sven: Your behaviour leaves much to be desired.

You should stop wasting everyone's time and energy with this
campaign to be reinstated as a d-i committer. Regardless of the
merits of the original decision, by now it seems unlikely that
anyone on the d-i team would find you a congenial colleague, and we
can see good reasons for their decision to hold you at arm's
length.

Please do not contact the committee again on this matter.

6. The Project Leader should delegate (to a group rather than to an
individual, but perhaps to an existing group or groups) mediation
and disciplinary powers, including the power to intervene
informally, give formal advice and reprimands, rule on social
disputes, and take disciplinary action short of expulsion.


Thanks,
Ian.
Sven Luther
2006-11-24 12:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Sven Luther writes ("Re: Renewed appeal to the technical committee
[stuff]
I'm glad to see that I'm not on your list of `one-sided' people. Not
that I expect you to be pleased when I tell you this: the reason all
these people are disagreeing with you isn't because they're biased.
It's because of your intolerable behaviour.
Oh well.
Post by Ian Jackson
1. We note that Sven Luther has a dispute with the debian-installer
team; Sven feels that he should have access to the d-i svn
repository.
2. We note that the d-i team, who manage that repository, disagree.
3. Whether or not someone should be permitted commit access to a
repository is a social and political matter. Therefore we do not
have the power to overrule the d-i team on this question.
So, you clearly agree that there is no technical reason for the the svn commit
access to be removed. This is a strong claim of frans and joeyh, that this is
not a personal dispute, but there are technical reasons for the current state
of things.
Post by Ian Jackson
4. Nevertheless, we wish to state some opinions as we are
Right.
Post by Ian Jackson
5. Sven: Your behaviour leaves much to be desired.
You should stop wasting everyone's time and energy with this
campaign to be reinstated as a d-i committer. Regardless of the
merits of the original decision, by now it seems unlikely that
anyone on the d-i team would find you a congenial colleague, and we
can see good reasons for their decision to hold you at arm's
length.
I would very much like a detailed comment from you to justify this. I am
really baffled by this, i have tried nothing else than doing good technical
work, and the other side is handling me "FUCK YOU"s and other agressivity.

Maybe you could also rule that frans and co should stop everyone time, and
allow technical improvements to go into d-i without further social-dispute
mandated constraints.
Post by Ian Jackson
Please do not contact the committee again on this matter.
6. The Project Leader should delegate (to a group rather than to an
individual, but perhaps to an existing group or groups) mediation
and disciplinary powers, including the power to intervene
informally, give formal advice and reprimands, rule on social
disputes, and take disciplinary action short of expulsion.
Great, and if the DPL choses to further ignore the issue ? It is not like i
have been trying to get in contact with him for over a month now, and mostly
failed ?

So, as conclusion, this means :

The technical committee rules that :

1) this is not a technical issue, even if is has technical consequences on
the quality of the debian distribution on powerpc, and affects our powerpc
users.

2) i should stop bothering the technical committee about this.

3) the DPL should create a proper delegation to a group who will be able to
handle a fair mediation on this, as well as have the power to act afterward.

This is fine with me.

I would appreciate if you modified those points :

1) your accusation of my behaviour is unjustified, and one-sided, please
drop them. They bring nothing, and fail to be objective.

2) if you do not do this, then you have to be fair, and condemn both
behaviours.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
Ian Jackson
2006-11-24 12:31:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sven Luther
Post by Ian Jackson
3. Whether or not someone should be permitted commit access to a
repository is a social and political matter. Therefore we do not
have the power to overrule the d-i team on this question.
So, you clearly agree that there is no technical reason for the the
svn commit access to be removed. This is a strong claim of frans and
joeyh, that this is not a personal dispute, but there are technical
reasons for the current state of things.
Firstly, I have no particular interest in the details of this. It is
Frans and Joey's decision and you'll just have to live with it. If
they said that they were denying you commit access because the moon
was made of green cheese it would not be for the TC to overrule them.
(Although we might issue an opinion saying we thought it wasn't.)

Secondly, I regret to say that I have some reservations about the
accuracy of your reports of other people's opinions and actions.
Post by Sven Luther
I would very much like a detailed comment from you to justify this. [...]
Many other people have tried to explain this to you and failed. I see
no reason to think I'm going to have any more success.
Post by Sven Luther
1) this is not a technical issue, even if is has technical consequences on
the quality of the debian distribution on powerpc, and affects our powerpc
users.
Exactly.
Post by Sven Luther
2) i should stop bothering the technical committee about this.
Exactly.
Post by Sven Luther
3) the DPL should create a proper delegation to a group who will be able to
handle a fair mediation on this, as well as have the power to act afterward.
I warn you that if you think this will be to your advantage in this
dispute you are seriously mistaken.
Post by Sven Luther
2) if you do not do this, then you have to be fair, and condemn both
behaviours.
I have seen no clear evidence of unreasonable behaviour by Frans or
Joey. I have seen you behaving unreasonably despite requests from
nearly everyone to shut up. So it is quite fair of me to condemn you
and not them.

Ian.
Sven Luther
2006-11-24 12:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Sven Luther
Post by Ian Jackson
3. Whether or not someone should be permitted commit access to a
repository is a social and political matter. Therefore we do not
have the power to overrule the d-i team on this question.
So, you clearly agree that there is no technical reason for the the
svn commit access to be removed. This is a strong claim of frans and
joeyh, that this is not a personal dispute, but there are technical
reasons for the current state of things.
Firstly, I have no particular interest in the details of this. It is
But you still strongly weight your position in favour of them.
Post by Ian Jackson
Frans and Joey's decision and you'll just have to live with it. If
Yeah, i can live with that. What i cannot live with, is the quality of the
powerpc port to suffer from it, and our users to suffer from it.

I guess this also mean, that you could rule that on the powerpc arch, d-i is
no more built from the archive controlled by frans and joey, but one in which
i would be free to work without constraints, and for the best interest of our
users.
Post by Ian Jackson
they said that they were denying you commit access because the moon
was made of green cheese it would not be for the TC to overrule them.
(Although we might issue an opinion saying we thought it wasn't.)
But the technical quality of the powerpc port, and how the current situation
hurts it is indeed within the responsability of the tech ctte, which is why i
chose to write to you about this. again.
Post by Ian Jackson
Secondly, I regret to say that I have some reservations about the
accuracy of your reports of other people's opinions and actions.
Yes, please tell me which reservations, and i will clarify them.

Notice that this is indeed why many are siding against me on this, because
they are implying i am lying, which is in itsefl quite insulting to me.

At least you should leave me a chance to clarify these questions. And know
that i have *ALWAYS* recognized my errors if i made them, which can not be
said for the other side of this dispute, so my claims are of more value than
theirs.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Sven Luther
I would very much like a detailed comment from you to justify this. [...]
Many other people have tried to explain this to you and failed. I see
no reason to think I'm going to have any more success.
Well, many people have said to me : go away, you bother us, just be silent adn
everyone will be happy, or various variations of the same. Some have said they
would try to speak with Frans, but months and months pass without any change or
any evidence of what i i am really reproached, or sign that issues may change
some day.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Sven Luther
1) this is not a technical issue, even if is has technical consequences on
the quality of the debian distribution on powerpc, and affects our powerpc
users.
Exactly.
So, when user come after the etch release, and voice complaints about random
breakage, we will say : we don't care, it is not a technical issue ?
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Sven Luther
2) i should stop bothering the technical committee about this.
Exactly.
And the d-i folk should stop claiming there is a technical reason for their
action.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Sven Luther
3) the DPL should create a proper delegation to a group who will be able to
handle a fair mediation on this, as well as have the power to act afterward.
I warn you that if you think this will be to your advantage in this
dispute you are seriously mistaken.
Oh, so there will not be a fair hearing based on facts, but that this
commision is a joke, and will only be formed to castigate me, and give full
reason to frans ? Well, i will indeed be quite disapointed by this, but in any
case, it can't probably be worse than what the DPL has done upto now.

It is my strong believe that the facts give me right, that i have made each
reasonable effort to accomodate the issue, even if i pressed aa bit, but given
the many months, you would have done the same in my place, and the only stuff
i got in return was of the "FUCK YOU"variety.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Sven Luther
2) if you do not do this, then you have to be fair, and condemn both
behaviours.
I have seen no clear evidence of unreasonable behaviour by Frans or
Err.

please read :

http://blog.technologeek.org/2006/11/02/33

Also :

http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/FransPopAndOthersVs.SvenLutherIssue/SvenLutherThinking

. I am sorry, but you can't claim that telling me "FUCK YOU" is reasonable
behaviour by Frans. Nor can you say that JoeyH's reply to the petition set up
by Julien Blache (independent of me), who said :

I assume that everyone listed above is planning to work with Sven Luther in
developing the Debian installer once his commit access is restored, or have
some solution that will let the d-i developers who choose not to work with
him somehow continue to effectively work on d-i? Or have you just not
considered these issues? Signing your name without something to back it up
is a very weak gesture.

Is reasonable ? This sounds like a blackmail situation to me.

If you compare this to what i have said in
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/FransPopAndOthersVs.SvenLutherIssue/SvenLuther
:

An last a personal message to Frans, remember when we where in Extremadura,
we had a good time, and we worked side by side. I seriously lament that it
all degenerated like it did. I certainly have my part of responsability in
this, but i passed though times, as you know. Let's put pride and arrogance
and remembrance of past hurts aside, and let's again work on d-i all
together, as it should be.

and you still say they are most reasonable, and i an unreasonaeble ? I guess
you have not even read my request to the tech comitte, nor the wiki page
linked from it, am i right ?
Post by Ian Jackson
Joey. I have seen you behaving unreasonably despite requests from
nearly everyone to shut up. So it is quite fair of me to condemn you
and not them.
So, you don't like what i am saying, so i have to shut up ?

So, you are wrong, a independent and honest commission investigating the issue
can only solve this to my uttermost satisfaction. The tech-ctte doesn't seem
to be this body, nor the DPL seems to be able to handle it, or delegate it to
someone able to solve the issue, so the issue will stay open forever.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
Steve Langasek
2006-11-27 09:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
1. We note that Sven Luther has a dispute with the debian-installer
team; Sven feels that he should have access to the d-i svn
repository.
2. We note that the d-i team, who manage that repository, disagree.
3. Whether or not someone should be permitted commit access to a
repository is a social and political matter. Therefore we do not
have the power to overrule the d-i team on this question.
4. Nevertheless, we wish to state some opinions as we are
5. Sven: Your behaviour leaves much to be desired.
You should stop wasting everyone's time and energy with this
campaign to be reinstated as a d-i committer. Regardless of the
merits of the original decision, by now it seems unlikely that
anyone on the d-i team would find you a congenial colleague, and we
can see good reasons for their decision to hold you at arm's
length.
Please do not contact the committee again on this matter.
6. The Project Leader should delegate (to a group rather than to an
individual, but perhaps to an existing group or groups) mediation
and disciplinary powers, including the power to intervene
informally, give formal advice and reprimands, rule on social
disputes, and take disciplinary action short of expulsion.
I am reluctant to ratify this resolution. Although I'm largely in
agreement, the only slight /potential/ good I see coming from this is that
going forward, the technical committee might be the *one* authority in
Debian that Sven doesn't try to browbeat into overriding Frans's decision.
I'm not sure that's even probable, let alone a worthwhile benefit.

BTW, there is one aspect of the current conflict that is under the TC's
purview: under §6.1.2, the technical committee decides in disputes over who
the maintainer for a package should be. Sven's calls for restoring his
commit access are ultimately grounded in the fact that the Debian Installer
team is the maintainer for the installer and its many individual component
packages, and they build these packages out of the svn repo. So it looks to
me that it is in our power to rule that Sven should be the maintainer of
some subset of powerpc-specific installer packages. That's not what he's
asked for though, and this would only move the interface between Sven and
the d-i team (and the resulting conflict) by one degree, so I don't believe
this is something we ought to do.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
***@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Ian Jackson
2006-11-27 11:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Langasek
I am reluctant to ratify this resolution. Although I'm largely in
agreement, the only slight /potential/ good I see coming from this is that
going forward, the technical committee might be the *one* authority in
Debian that Sven doesn't try to browbeat into overriding Frans's decision.
The TC is not ideal for dealing with these kind of interpersonal
problems, because our procedure is rather cumbersome and particularly
because of the requirement for public discussion.

I added the sentence saying he shouldn't darken our door again because
otherwise he will, to no good effect. We can't do anything else other
than recommend that the DPL please please please Do Something. We
should not avoid making a decision just because it doesn't solve the
whole problem.
Post by Steve Langasek
BTW, there is one aspect of the current conflict that is under the TC's
purview: under §6.1.2, the technical committee decides in disputes over who
the maintainer for a package should be. [...]
As far as I can tell Sven hasn't said he wants to be the sole d-i
maintainer. He hasn't said it to us, in any case. (I don't think the
TC maintainership-shifting power should/could be used to create a
maintainership `team' against the wishes of some of the participants.)

We can deal with the maintainership question in the same resolution,
so I hereby propose this following resolution instead:

1. We note that Sven Luther has a dispute with the debian-installer
team; Sven feels that he should have access to the d-i svn
repository.

2. We note that the d-i team, who manage that repository, disagree.

3. Whether or not someone should be permitted commit access to a
repository is a social and political matter. Therefore we do not
have the power to overrule the d-i team on this question.

4. It is not clear to us whether Sven intends us to exercise our
power under s6.1(2) to `[decide] who should be the maintainer for
a package', for example, to make Sven the maintainer for d-i.
Such a use of our powers would not be helpful in this case, and
if Sven had requested it of us we would have refused.

5. Nevertheless, we wish to state some opinions as we are
empowered to do by s6.1(5) of the constitution:

6. Sven: Your behaviour leaves much to be desired.

You should stop wasting everyone's time and energy with this
campaign to be reinstated as a d-i committer. Regardless of the
merits of the original decision, by now it seems unlikely that
anyone on the d-i team would find you a congenial colleague, and we
can see good reasons for their decision to hold you at arm's
length.

Please do not contact the committee again on this matter.

7. The Project Leader should delegate (to a group rather than to an
individual, but perhaps to an existing group or groups) mediation
and disciplinary powers, including the power to intervene
informally, give formal advice and reprimands, rule on social
disputes, and take disciplinary action short of expulsion.

Ian.
Anthony Towns
2006-11-27 16:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
We can't do anything else other
than recommend that the DPL please please please Do Something.
I think I'm going to deliberately abstain on any resolution that does
something of that nature. I'd kind-of like to abstain from being involved
in the discussion regarding it too (I'd rather just listen).

Cheers,
aj
Manoj Srivastava
2006-11-29 03:45:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Langasek
BTW, there is one aspect of the current conflict that is under the
TC's purview: under §6.1.2, the technical committee decides in
disputes over who the maintainer for a package should be. Sven's
calls for restoring his commit access are ultimately grounded in the
fact that the Debian Installer team is the maintainer for the
installer and its many individual component packages, and they build
these packages out of the svn repo. So it looks to me that it is in
our power to rule that Sven should be the maintainer of some subset
of powerpc-specific installer packages. That's not what he's asked
for though, and this would only move the interface between Sven and
the d-i team (and the resulting conflict) by one degree, so I don't
believe this is something we ought to do.
I think that the TC could take d-i away from the current team
and assign it to Sven Luther (and subsequently commit ourselves to a
secure asylum) -- but I don't think one has precedent for taking part
of a package, and handing it off to someone else. The degree of
coordination required would make such a shotgun wedding an untenable
working situation.

If the TC feels that sven is in the right, and the current d-i
team is wrong, and is incapable of handling the package (which is a
stance I oppose), then sure.

manoj
--
Banectomy, n.: The removal of bruises on a banana. Rich Hall,
"Sniglets"
Manoj Srivastava <***@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Steve Langasek
2006-11-30 12:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Manoj Srivastava
I think that the TC could take d-i away from the current team
and assign it to Sven Luther (and subsequently commit ourselves to a
secure asylum) -- but I don't think one has precedent for taking part
of a package, and handing it off to someone else. The degree of
coordination required would make such a shotgun wedding an untenable
working situation.
Addressing only the technical point here, since we seem to be in agreement
regarding whether this should be done in the present case -- the Debian
installer is built from a large number of individual source packages, and
while many of them are maintained by the installer team, not all are. I
think it's perfectly reasonable to consider the question of whether it might
be better to assign some of these powerpc-related source packages away from
the d-i team, and that this doesn't represent reassigning "part" of a
package.

And having considered that question, I do think the answer is no. In
particular, the linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6 source package, which was the
most recent point of contention, is one that I think should be at the
disposal of a team, not just an individual -- and especially not an
individual that the d-i team doesn't get along with. While I understand
that Sven is unhappy at being left on the outside of the team in question, I
don't think that giving the package to him as an individual will really be a
benefit to the powerpc users, and it certainly doesn't do anything to
address the underlying cooperation problems.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
***@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Manoj Srivastava
2006-11-29 03:41:57 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:43:08 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
1. We note that Sven Luther has a dispute with the debian-installer
team; Sven feels that he should have access to the d-i svn
repository.
2. We note that the d-i team, who manage that repository, disagree.
3. Whether or not someone should be permitted commit access to a
repository is a social and political matter. Therefore we do not
have the power to overrule the d-i team on this question.
4. Nevertheless, we wish to state some opinions as we are empowered
5. Sven: Your behaviour leaves much to be desired.
You should stop wasting everyone's time and energy with this
campaign to be reinstated as a d-i committer. Regardless of the
merits of the original decision, by now it seems unlikely that
anyone on the d-i team would find you a congenial colleague, and
we can see good reasons for their decision to hold you at arm's
length.
Please do not contact the committee again on this matter.
...unless there are significant new developments.

With that one addition, I agree with this resolution so far.
Post by Ian Jackson
6. The Project Leader should delegate (to a group rather than to an
individual, but perhaps to an existing group or groups) mediation
and disciplinary powers, including the power to intervene
informally, give formal advice and reprimands, rule on social
disputes, and take disciplinary action short of expulsion.
I think that this has been tried before, and another is under
way; and I am not so sanguine that anything real is likely to emerge
from it. I don't think this is a matter of delegation or a personal
conflict between the DPL and a developer; so just passing the buck to
a new person does not seem like a solution.

manoj
--
Oreo.
Manoj Srivastava <***@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Ian Jackson
2006-11-29 15:24:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Manoj Srivastava
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:43:08 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Please do not contact the committee again on this matter.
...unless there are significant new developments.
I can see where you're coming from here. However I don't think that
will do the job because "there are significant new developments" is
too subjective a condition. I think you might find arguments that
some allegation of interpersonal misbehaviour, or perhaps even time
having passed, constituted `significant new developments'.

We could say something like `without permission of <someone>' but that
is just setting <someone> up for constant badgering.

Remember that we are only telling _Sven_ not to contact the committee
again. If he is able to convince anyone else that there is a problem
the TC can solve, then I hope we can rely that person to bring the
matter to us.
Post by Manoj Srivastava
Post by Ian Jackson
6. The Project Leader should delegate (to a group rather than to an
individual, but perhaps to an existing group or groups) mediation
and disciplinary powers, including the power to intervene
informally, give formal advice and reprimands, rule on social
disputes, and take disciplinary action short of expulsion.
I think that this has been tried before, and another is under
way; and I am not so sanguine that anything real is likely to emerge
from it. I don't think this is a matter of delegation or a personal
conflict between the DPL and a developer; so just passing the buck to
a new person does not seem like a solution.
The DPL seems unwilling to grasp the nettle by the horns personally.
Perhaps there is a worry about percieved lack of neutrality, or
perhaps AJ thinks he have more important things to be doing (in which
case he's probably right!)

Most of the previous mediation attempts were conducted by people
without any enforcement ability. What I am asking here is for the DPL
to delegate the ability to _decide a final disposition_ of this
matter.

Is that not sufficiently clear ? I could expand on it:

The Project Leader should delegate mediation and disciplinary
powers, including the power to intervene informally, give formal
advice and reprimands, rule on social disputes, and take all kinds
of disciplinary action short of expulsion.

We are not optimistic that further attempts by mediators without a
full range of powers (both to decide and to enforce their rulings)
will do anything but prolong this particular dispute. Breakdown of
relations between the losing side and the arbitrator is to be
expected.

(If the Project Leader makes a standing delegation to arbitrate on
these kinds of disputes, it should be to a group rather than to an
individual, but perhaps to an existing group or groups.)

Ian.
Steve Langasek
2006-11-25 14:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sven Luther
Of the other members, believe both Steve Langasek, and Anthony Towns have
showed clear uncomprehension and one-sidedness about this issue, and i am not
sure they will be able to pass an objective judgement over this. Manoj
Srivastava also has been strongly aggressive against me about the non-free
firmware vote, which he manipulated in favour of his own position, maybe
unconciously.
I do not believe that having previously formed my own opinion about your
behavior towards the d-i release managers constitutes an unfair bias in this
matter, and AFAICS the only reason you have for claiming that my view is
subjective where that of others is not is that I disagree with you. I
therefore decline to recuse myself from the technical committee on this
basis. If I thought it would actually make a difference in your willingness
to respect the committee's decision I would gladly do so; but we already see
that you're criticizing Ian for "strongly weight[ing his] position in favour
of [Frans and Joey]", so I don't believe my recusation would change either
the outcome of a TC vote, or your ongoing straw-grasping search for an
authority that will side with you.
Post by Sven Luther
Post by Ian Jackson
5. Sven: Your behaviour leaves much to be desired.
You should stop wasting everyone's time and energy with this
campaign to be reinstated as a d-i committer. Regardless of the
merits of the original decision, by now it seems unlikely that
anyone on the d-i team would find you a congenial colleague, and we
can see good reasons for their decision to hold you at arm's
length.
I would very much like a detailed comment from you to justify this. I am
really baffled by this, i have tried nothing else than doing good technical
work, and the other side is handling me "FUCK YOU"s and other agressivity.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/11/msg00610.html:

Welcome to the d-i team, this is the way that people who are not in the
one true straigth line, or humble enough, or whatever, are dealt with.

[...]

But then, you are right to voice your critic of this ambient, i was myself
told to be silent about this, but i do strongly believe that the d-i
leadership is dead wrong in this approach, rejecting discussion, trying to
marginalize those they disagree with, and so on, and i think that they
should be reminded regularly of their errors, in order to some day drop a
bit their pride and learn how to work with people with ideas that don't
follow the one staight dogma.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/11/msg00956.html:

You are hurting our users (there where many requests for this feature from
G5 powermac users), and are acting in evident bad faith, while insisting
that it is all my own fault, this cannot continue as is. Please try to
maturate a bit, and stop acting this childishly.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/11/msg00968.html:

Another clueless comment.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/11/msg00966.html:

You clearly have no clue, so i wonder why you question the patch ? Go and
ask Colin or someone else with a clue or look at the code, since it is
clear you don't thrust me.

and finally, the *non-technical* content of the message the evoked the "fuck
you" in question, http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/10/msg01554.html:

Ok, Frans, please step back into reality.

[...]

Furthermore, my attitude has been more than correct with you and the d-i
team since at least the starting of september, and you have yourself
indulged at least four-five times, in practices against me which are the
exact echo of what was reproached against me back then.

I thus now call to our DPL, as well as the remainer of the d-i team. The
mediation procedure which was set upon me doesn't seem to be ever enough
to satisfy Frans, and i have suffered enough and we are now in a a phase
where there is no reason to keep this on, and it is time that the
situation is now re-evaluated, and that this childish nonsense is left
aside, and my commit rights to the d-i project is re-instated.

I fully expect that you will respond to this enumeration in true form, by
rationalizing each and every one of these departures from "good technical
work" into the realm of personal attacks on your interlocutor with claims
that Frans started it, that he deserved it, that you wouldn't have needed to
resort to such behavior if there weren't "childish" limitations on your
commit rights, etc., etc., ad nauseam. But I equally expect that the point
will not be lost on my fellow technical committee members: that your claim
that you "have tried nothing else than doing good technical work" is
*false*. Inasmuch as you *have* tried to limit yourself to technical work,
you nevertheless abandoned this vow well before this current mail to the
technical committee, as you do each time you feel slighted.
Post by Sven Luther
1) your accusation of my behaviour is unjustified, and one-sided, please
drop them. They bring nothing, and fail to be objective.
2) if you do not do this, then you have to be fair, and condemn both
behaviours.
I wonder that you think it's appropriate for a petitioner to tell the body
he's appealing to that they must do something.
Post by Sven Luther
I guess this also mean, that you could rule that on the powerpc arch, d-i is
no more built from the archive controlled by frans and joey, but one in which
i would be free to work without constraints, and for the best interest of our
users.
It is not in the best interest of powerpc's users to have forked versions of
any number of d-i-related packages just because you feel you should be able
to make any changes you want without Frans's review and approval. I'm a
member of the installer team in good standing, and *I* don't consider it my
place to make unilateral changes to the installer in the face of objections
from Frans or Joey. If you chafe so much at having your patches questioned
by the d-i release manager, then I don't believe that either restoring your
svn commit access or letting you run your own separate installer port for
powerpc is an appropriate solution.
Post by Sven Luther
At least you should leave me a chance to clarify these questions. And know
that i have *ALWAYS* recognized my errors if i made them, which can not be
said for the other side of this dispute, so my claims are of more value than
theirs.
Recognizing one's errors counts for very little when it doesn't stop you
from committing the same errors.
Post by Sven Luther
It is my strong believe that the facts give me right,
Yes, a belief so strong that it remains unshaken no matter how many people
tell you you're wrong.
Post by Sven Luther
that i have made each reasonable effort to accomodate the issue, even if i
pressed aa bit, but given the many months, you would have done the same in
my place,
No, most Debian developers don't have the sense of entitlement that you do,
and would have found other ways to participate instead of continuing to
scream that d-i commit access is their right as a DD.
Post by Sven Luther
and the only stuff i got in return was of the "FUCK YOU"variety.
This sort of hyperbole is precisely the kind of thing that might leave one
disinclined to take your characterizations of others' actions at face value.
Post by Sven Luther
Nor can you say that JoeyH's reply to the petition set up by Julien Blache
I assume that everyone listed above is planning to work with Sven Luther in
developing the Debian installer once his commit access is restored, or have
some solution that will let the d-i developers who choose not to work with
him somehow continue to effectively work on d-i? Or have you just not
considered these issues? Signing your name without something to back it up
is a very weak gesture.
Is reasonable ? This sounds like a blackmail situation to me.
Reminding people that Debian is not a democracy is perfectly reasonable.

Calling Joey's statement "blackmail" is not reasonable.
Post by Sven Luther
So, you are wrong, a independent and honest commission investigating the issue
can only solve this to my uttermost satisfaction. The tech-ctte doesn't seem
to be this body, nor the DPL seems to be able to handle it, or delegate it to
someone able to solve the issue, so the issue will stay open forever.
Perhaps the DPL should delegate a committee consisting of your immediate
family in order to satisfy your requirements for independence and honesty.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
***@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Sven Luther
2006-11-25 15:12:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Langasek
Post by Sven Luther
Of the other members, believe both Steve Langasek, and Anthony Towns have
showed clear uncomprehension and one-sidedness about this issue, and i am not
sure they will be able to pass an objective judgement over this. Manoj
Srivastava also has been strongly aggressive against me about the non-free
firmware vote, which he manipulated in favour of his own position, maybe
unconciously.
I do not believe that having previously formed my own opinion about your
behavior towards the d-i release managers constitutes an unfair bias in this
matter, and AFAICS the only reason you have for claiming that my view is
subjective where that of others is not is that I disagree with you. I
Well, i base this bias on the mails you wrote where you fully sided with frans
in this issue, and against me. I think you did so more than once, altough i
don't remember exactly.
Post by Steve Langasek
therefore decline to recuse myself from the technical committee on this
basis. If I thought it would actually make a difference in your willingness
to respect the committee's decision I would gladly do so; but we already see
that you're criticizing Ian for "strongly weight[ing his] position in favour
of [Frans and Joey]", so I don't believe my recusation would change either
Well, he is indeed strongly doing so, going ad-hominem against me, for the
sole reason that i am strongly pushing to get this issue resolved, while all
others seem to prefer to drag it on forever.
Post by Steve Langasek
the outcome of a TC vote, or your ongoing straw-grasping search for an
authority that will side with you.
As i said, i believe that you are biased against me, but if you are able to
make an objective participation on the TC vote, so much the better.
Post by Steve Langasek
Post by Sven Luther
Post by Ian Jackson
5. Sven: Your behaviour leaves much to be desired.
You should stop wasting everyone's time and energy with this
campaign to be reinstated as a d-i committer. Regardless of the
merits of the original decision, by now it seems unlikely that
anyone on the d-i team would find you a congenial colleague, and we
can see good reasons for their decision to hold you at arm's
length.
I would very much like a detailed comment from you to justify this. I am
really baffled by this, i have tried nothing else than doing good technical
work, and the other side is handling me "FUCK YOU"s and other agressivity.
Welcome to the d-i team, this is the way that people who are not in the
one true straigth line, or humble enough, or whatever, are dealt with.
[...]
This is indeed how i see it. It was very interesting to see how someone else
than me felt he was handled in such a way by the d-i team also. I prefer this
quote though :

Sven Luther (on the original wiki page) :

An last a personal message to Frans, remember when we where in Extremadura,
we had a good time, and we worked side by side. I seriously lament that it
all degenerated like it did. I certainly have my part of responsability in
this, but i passed though times, as you know. Let's put pride and arrogance
and remembrance of past hurts aside, and let's again work on d-i all
together, as it should be.

Frans Pop (on irc, about the wiki page containing the above) :

01:18 <fjp> My honest opinion of it: the biggest load of self-satisfied and
self-centered crap I've ever seen
Post by Steve Langasek
I fully expect that you will respond to this enumeration in true form, by
rationalizing each and every one of these departures from "good technical
work" into the realm of personal attacks on your interlocutor with claims
that Frans started it, that he deserved it, that you wouldn't have needed to
resort to such behavior if there weren't "childish" limitations on your
commit rights, etc., etc., ad nauseam. But I equally expect that the point
will not be lost on my fellow technical committee members: that your claim
that you "have tried nothing else than doing good technical work" is
*false*. Inasmuch as you *have* tried to limit yourself to technical work,
you nevertheless abandoned this vow well before this current mail to the
technical committee, as you do each time you feel slighted.
Well, i will disapoint you. I will do no such thing. I recognize, as i said
above, that both i and frans have misbheaved, that we both let the anger at
seeing absurdities, ad-hominem attacks, or wrong actions get the better of us,
and this is why this escalated.

The difference between him and me though, is that i repeteadly tried to go
forward, to better this situation, to discuss with him. And repeteadly, means
like 10 times or so since spring, and each of those cases where fully rejected
in the same way the above proposal was rejected.

Neither was i clearly told what it is they have against me, nor any visible
effort has been made to put the issue aside and work well together.

Now, this list above from you clearly show that you are not objective or
biased. If you where objective, you would not only attacked me, but also
listed the numerous as-hominem attacks against me from frans, listed how in
this last email exchange where i called frans clueless, he, in order to
discredit my technical skills, attacked my patches and made clueless comments
which would fully break the -prep support.

You would also mention how, Frans, seeing that the upload of rootskel 1.43 had
a very minor bug (concerning the redirection of the output of the loaded
modules), silently reverted it, without even trying to contact me about this
little problem in the patch, patch which has been open in the BTS since almost
a month.

But no, you silently skipped all this, and only gave the most damaging mails
from me, and even then the only the extracts that most damaged me.

Notice how i was asked to do the same you have done against frans, some time
back, and that instead i chose to write the wiki page at :

http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/FransPopAndOthersVs.SvenLutherIssue/SvenLuther

Which was an attempt from my part to solve this issue in a positive and
constructive way, but was received as we all know, and mostly ignored by those
who had a possibility to influence the issue, and then, what, another month
passed, and we are still in the same mess.

So, Steve, can you look yourself in a mirror, and honestly tell that you are
acting unbiased, honestly and in good faith ? That your interaction in this
dispute has the solving of it in mind ? Or rather that you where in the group
of people who knew about it from the begining, and where part of those who
where consulted by Frans when he decided to kick me out of the project in
spring.

Also, if you where trully objective, you would also list your own interaction
in this discussion, and then it would become clear to all that you where
indeed biased in the past, which is why i have some doubt about your capacity
of holding an unbiased judgement in this.
Post by Steve Langasek
Post by Sven Luther
1) your accusation of my behaviour is unjustified, and one-sided, please
drop them. They bring nothing, and fail to be objective.
2) if you do not do this, then you have to be fair, and condemn both
behaviours.
I wonder that you think it's appropriate for a petitioner to tell the body
he's appealing to that they must do something.
You can decide what you want, i just feel strongly that this part of it is
biased against me, and one-sided in the dispute, and said so.

I strongly wish for a honest, un-biased and objective body to intervene in
this issue. I asked the DPL to do this in spring, but the same as you, he
fully sided against me, and now, so many month after the fact, we are still in
the same mess. I agree with Ian that the TC is maybe not this body, but given
the biased decision by the DPL back then, and his continuous ignorance of it,
i really don't know anymore what to do about it.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
Steve Langasek
2006-11-26 09:26:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sven Luther
Post by Steve Langasek
Welcome to the d-i team, this is the way that people who are not in the
one true straigth line, or humble enough, or whatever, are dealt with.
[...]
This is indeed how i see it. It was very interesting to see how someone else
than me felt he was handled in such a way by the d-i team also.
The poster in question had not been "handled" at all by the d-i team. He
was not a translator for one of the languages that had been cut from the
release; he was not a member of the d-i team. He was an outside observer
who somehow decided it was appropriate to rant that the installer team had
offended the principles of Free Software.

That you think this situation provides support for your claims just
demonstrates the extent to which your conflict with Frans colors your
perception of everything in the project.
Post by Sven Luther
The difference between him and me though, is that i repeteadly tried to go
forward, to better this situation, to discuss with him. And repeteadly, means
like 10 times or so since spring, and each of those cases where fully rejected
in the same way the above proposal was rejected.
No, the difference between you and him is that you spend a lot of time
*talking* about going forward, where "going forward" means trying to get
yourself commit rights to d-i svn again. This is even your response when
Frans does take time to look at your patches and makes an effort to
understand them before committing them.
Post by Sven Luther
Now, this list above from you clearly show that you are not objective or
biased. If you where objective, you would not only attacked me, but also
listed the numerous as-hominem attacks against me from frans,
Frans is not making false statements before this committee. It is only
*your* exaggerated claims that I feel it necessary to refute. If Frans was
posting to this mailing list insisting that he had never done anything that
you should take offense at, I could come up with a similar laundry list for
him. But until someone *does* make that claim on this list, *that's not
relevant*.

The fundamental problem here is that you really seem to think that any
"unbiased" person will conclude that, because Frans hasn't been nice to you,
the decision to block you from d-i svn should be overturned because you have
a *right* to be able to commit to the repository. You have been told
multiple times by multiple people that this is not the case, yet you give
every indication that you regard commit access as something you are entitled
to. Until you can accept that commit access and upload access are *not*
entitlements, mediation will never bring resolution because you will see
personal insults where there are none -- such as interpreting someone taking
Post by Sven Luther
listed how in this last email exchange where i called frans clueless, he,
in order to discredit my technical skills, attacked my patches and made
clueless comments which would fully break the -prep support.
Perhaps, if you were a quiet contributor to d-i, people would question
whether Frans was fit to lead the d-i team after removing your commit
rights. But you're not a quiet contributor; you abuse Frans, and you abuse
the time of your fellow developers by repeatedly demanding vindication, as
if your commit access is the single most important problem facing the
project. I understand completely why someone would not want you as a team
member!
Post by Sven Luther
Subject: linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6_1.24_powerpc.changes REJECTED
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:42:11 +0000
reject as requested by debian-boot
If this is not a technical issue, i don't know what is. I am no more allowed
to upload packages ?
You know that you are not a member of the debian installer team. This
implies that you are not allowed to do maintainer uploads of packages
maintained by the debian installer team, yet you uploaded this package with
a maintainer version number and without submitting a patch for it. Asking
for a REJECT without talking to you was unnecessarily antagonistic on
Frans's part given that you are still listed as an uploader, but he was
still within his rights to ask for it and it was reasonable for the ftp
masters to honor his request.

And you manage to see in this act a great conspiracy to drive you crazy?
Then you really should be seeking psychiatric help, and you should be
talking to your psychiatrist about persecution complexes.
Post by Sven Luther
I cannot continue like this, i simply cannot, and if some day i follow the
steps of dato, well, i hope you all who chose to look the other side, or
bash on me for bothering them, will then know the part of responsabilities
you took in this.
Debian is not responsible for your mental health. If participating in
Debian is detrimental to your health, *you* need to take responsibility for
stepping back from Debian in order to put your health first, instead of
telling everybody else how they need to change for the sake of poor Sven's
sanity. If you really can't accept that you don't have a right to upload
these packages, then I do think it would be in your best interest to step
back from Debian instead of continuing to fight hopeless battles.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
***@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Sven Luther
2006-11-26 09:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Langasek
Post by Sven Luther
The difference between him and me though, is that i repeteadly tried to go
forward, to better this situation, to discuss with him. And repeteadly, means
like 10 times or so since spring, and each of those cases where fully rejected
in the same way the above proposal was rejected.
No, the difference between you and him is that you spend a lot of time
*talking* about going forward, where "going forward" means trying to get
yourself commit rights to d-i svn again. This is even your response when
Frans does take time to look at your patches and makes an effort to
understand them before committing them.
Well, what can i say :

Sven :
An last a personal message to Frans, remember when we where in Extremadura,
we had a good time, and we worked side by side. I seriously lament that it
all degenerated like it did. I certainly have my part of responsability in
this, but i passed though times, as you know. Let's put pride and arrogance
and remembrance of past hurts aside, and let's again work on d-i all
together, as it should be.


Frans :
the biggest load of self-satisfied and self-centered crap I've ever seen
FUCK YOU!

Steve, face it, you are fully biased on this issue, and your two mails here
clearly show that.

Furthermore, there is no way this whole situation could improve in any way,
since it is set up in a way to cause more anger anhd escalation on both sides.

I didn't ask much, i did ask that :

1) i am not asked to recognize publicly that all this mess is fully my
fault, but that the faults are shared, or better even, that we stop speaking
about faults.

2) that frans is not the one to be judge of my behaviour, since he is a
party to the dispute.

3) that a fixed deadline is set on when this issue is judged, and that frans
(and anonymoous others) show at least some token act of good faith on this.

But then i get replies like yours, or holger's or blackmailing like joeyh's in
response to the support page from julien blache.

To ian, it is a great idea that you had with the independnt mediator, and fear
not, any objective decision taken by such a body can only be in my favour,
that is help solving this issue so it is not a point of contention generating
anger and escalation anymore, and everyone can revert to working on debian in
harmony, which is all i ever asked.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
Ian Jackson
2006-11-27 11:46:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sven Luther
Well, i base this bias on the mails you wrote where you fully sided
with frans in this issue, and against me. I think you did so more
than once, altough i don't remember exactly.
Note that the TC makes decisions only as a last resort. This means
that for any high profile question brought to the TC the TC members
are fairly likely to have seen prior discussion, formed an opinion,
and participated as individuals.

To recuse those TC members for this reason would be absurd. Indeed,
the Constitution even says that TC members are expected to participate
in discussions before things get to the TC.

Obviously every TC member is expected to be receptive to the arguments
that are put forward, but that does not mean that they will
necessarily be convinced.
Post by Sven Luther
[stuff]
Well, he is indeed strongly doing so, going ad-hominem against me, for the
sole reason that i am strongly pushing to get this issue resolved, while all
others seem to prefer to drag it on forever.
ROTFL! I wasn't going to reply to any more of this, but that's
hilarious enough it deserved highlighting.

Ian.
Sven Luther
2006-11-27 16:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Sven Luther
Well, i base this bias on the mails you wrote where you fully sided
with frans in this issue, and against me. I think you did so more
than once, altough i don't remember exactly.
Note that the TC makes decisions only as a last resort. This means
that for any high profile question brought to the TC the TC members
are fairly likely to have seen prior discussion, formed an opinion,
and participated as individuals.
Probably. But there is a difference between having seen prior discussion or
even participated in the discussion, and having taken full position in favour
of one of the parties, and repeteadly took position in a fully one-sided way.
Post by Ian Jackson
To recuse those TC members for this reason would be absurd. Indeed,
the Constitution even says that TC members are expected to participate
in discussions before things get to the TC.
Participate in discussion, not fully taking party with one side.
Post by Ian Jackson
Obviously every TC member is expected to be receptive to the arguments
that are put forward, but that does not mean that they will
necessarily be convinced.
Yes, but in this case, i feel that there is a huge risk that the taking of
position will imply that those folk are not able to be receptive to the
arguments of the other party.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Sven Luther
[stuff]
Well, he is indeed strongly doing so, going ad-hominem against me, for the
sole reason that i am strongly pushing to get this issue resolved, while all
others seem to prefer to drag it on forever.
ROTFL! I wasn't going to reply to any more of this, but that's
hilarious enough it deserved highlighting.
Can i ask you why ?

This is a problem, both for me, for our (powerpc) users who suffer from this
situation, and everyone around it who suffer the collateral damages from this
mess.

Do you not think it is important that this get solved ? Or i suppose that you
think that we are having this problem still now, so many months after the
events, is a proof that i am an associal idiot, and that debian would be
better off without me, as i was told by others ?

Do you really think that this is the best way to solve social conflicts, by
fully siding with one party, giving him all power over the situation, and
being judge of the other party good behaviour ?

In such cases, most often than not, the fault is shared, and doing as was done
here is *NEVER* going to solve the issue.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
Ian Jackson
2006-11-27 16:58:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sven Luther
Post by Ian Jackson
Note that the TC makes decisions only as a last resort. This means
that for any high profile question brought to the TC the TC members
are fairly likely to have seen prior discussion, formed an opinion,
and participated as individuals.
Probably. But there is a difference between having seen prior discussion or
even participated in the discussion, and having taken full position in favour
of one of the parties, and repeteadly took position in a fully one-sided way.
I don't think that we should be trying to make that distinction. To
do so would just be to prevent TC members from engaging fully in
discussions that might reach the committee.
Post by Sven Luther
Participate in discussion, not fully taking party with one side.
Participating in a discussion often _does_ involve coming to a
conclusion that one side is right and then arguing for that side.

It would be bad if TC members felt they had a choice between that kind
of full participation in discussions, and their participation in the
same decisions if and when they get to the TC.
Post by Sven Luther
Yes, but in this case, i feel that there is a huge risk that the taking of
position will imply that those folk are not able to be receptive to the
arguments of the other party.
I'm afraid I disagree and you'll just have to live with it. Steve has
decided not to recuse himself and I haven't seen anyone else on the TC
disagree with that decision.

Ian.
Sven Luther
2006-11-27 17:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Sven Luther
Post by Ian Jackson
Note that the TC makes decisions only as a last resort. This means
that for any high profile question brought to the TC the TC members
are fairly likely to have seen prior discussion, formed an opinion,
and participated as individuals.
Probably. But there is a difference between having seen prior discussion or
even participated in the discussion, and having taken full position in favour
of one of the parties, and repeteadly took position in a fully one-sided way.
I don't think that we should be trying to make that distinction. To
do so would just be to prevent TC members from engaging fully in
discussions that might reach the committee.
If the TC members make every effort to be actually objective in the discussion
and decision, then it is fine, but i have some doubts about this.

This is the same kind of sick situation, which Anthony setup, so that Frans is
at the same time party, has full power over the situation, and on top of that
is setup as judge of my behaviour.

Do you really want to reproduce this in the TC ? You yourself have showed some
one-sidedness in your first proposal. I understand that this may be due to
anger at me bringing again the issue to the public, but do you really think
you are being objective in this ?

Also, i want to point you to a mail by Alex Fernandez :

Message-ID: <***@mail.gmail.com>
My humble opinion as an occassional user of Debian-powerpc.

One of the selling points of Free Software in general, and Debian in
particular, is that the people doing the coding are the people in
charge. If this fails to happen then the decision process must be
refined.

I have not followed the discussion in full (I only read
debian-powerpc), but in this case it looks like Sven is doing the
coding and other people are trying to tell him what to do and not to
do. This is really hurting Debian in the mid- and long-term. Please,
please find a way to work together. Debian is the finest distro around
for administration, and hardware support should also be first class.

And leave this to your meditation.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Sven Luther
Participate in discussion, not fully taking party with one side.
Participating in a discussion often _does_ involve coming to a
conclusion that one side is right and then arguing for that side.
There is a difference between participating in a discussion, and fully taking
side, not hearing the arguments of the other side, which i feel is what
happened here.
Post by Ian Jackson
It would be bad if TC members felt they had a choice between that kind
of full participation in discussions, and their participation in the
same decisions if and when they get to the TC.
As long as they are objective, this is fine. I have seen very few people who
had a say in this issue being objective about it.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Sven Luther
Yes, but in this case, i feel that there is a huge risk that the taking of
position will imply that those folk are not able to be receptive to the
arguments of the other party.
I'm afraid I disagree and you'll just have to live with it. Steve has
decided not to recuse himself and I haven't seen anyone else on the TC
disagree with that decision.
Fine, what can i say. I hope for your concience that you will tell him when
you feel he is not being objective.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
Steve Langasek
2006-11-28 05:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sven Luther
Post by Ian Jackson
Note that the TC makes decisions only as a last resort. This means
that for any high profile question brought to the TC the TC members
are fairly likely to have seen prior discussion, formed an opinion,
and participated as individuals.
Probably. But there is a difference between having seen prior discussion
or even participated in the discussion, and having taken full position in
favour of one of the parties, and repeteadly took position in a fully
one-sided way.
No, there's really not. It is customary for judges to recuse themselves from
cases where they have a *personal* interest in the outcome that differs from
*society's* interest in the outcome. I have no money invested in a direct
competitor of yours, I am not aspiring to supplant you as the leader of the
powerpc port, and I have no agenda that involves killing off the powerpc
port; there is no relevant personal bias here. My only goals are to foster
a global minimum of friction between developers and encourage the
technically best distribution that we can get. That doesn't disqualify me
from the technical committee just because I think *you're wrong*.

Because that's really what this comes down to -- you're unwilling to accept
that anyone without an ulterior motive could ever disagree with Sven.
Indeed, you have repeatedly accused me personally of being dishonest with
myself for disagreeing with you in this exact matter. As long as you can't
accept that what's best for you, and what you think is best for the
community, is different from what *others* think is best for the community,
and accept that the greater good of the community has to take precedence,
any "mediation" attempts will be a waste of time because you will never
sublimate your own agenda by submitting to binding arbitration, and if
you're not willing to do that, then the only way to ever "resolve" anything
is by giving in to you.

So yes -- I really do think that you learning to accept a loss gracefully
outweighs any short-term impact it may have on the powerpc port, because
being able to resolve conflicts over technical issues *without* invoking a
higher authority, *without* accusing others of personal malice, is an
important part of being part of a development team, and I have no reason to
believe that forcing Frans to give you commit access is going to change how
you interact with other developers when things don't go your way, which
means there will always be another blow-up, and your contributions to the
powerpc port as a single developer do not outweigh the countless developer
hours lost to your diatribes.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
***@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Manoj Srivastava
2006-11-29 03:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sven Luther
Sven Luther writes ("Renewed appeal to the technical committee
Post by Sven Luther
In order to keep the objectivity and fairness of the technical
comittee ruling, all those technical comittee members who have a
vested interest in one side of this matter, and as thus are not
able for whatever reason to make an objective and fair decision,
should abstain from participating in this issue.
Which TC members do you think have a `vested interest' ?
Is Joey Hess not a Technical comittee member ? I don't think Frans
Pop is though, nor someone else of the d-i team. Ah, i must be
wrong, it seems that Joey Hess is not listed as tech ctte member.
I would like to point out a commonality I have seen about your
accusations: lack of preparation; it is easy enough to see who
comprises the ctte, and yet, you fire off the accusations first,
without being certain if joeuh and frans are members or not.

This tendency to assume the worst of people and teams before
doing even rudimentary homework does no credit to your case.
Post by Sven Luther
Of the other members, believe both Steve Langasek, and Anthony Towns
have showed clear uncomprehension and one-sidedness about this
issue, and i am not sure they will be able to pass an objective
judgement over this. Manoj Srivastava also has been strongly
aggressive against me about the non-free firmware vote, which he
manipulated in favour of his own position, maybe unconciously.
Yet another accusation of misconduct with no proof whatsoever,
apart from a conclusion you seem to have jumped to. I can also see
how this is not condusive to being a member of a team.
Post by Sven Luther
If these three can take an objective view of these issues, fine, but
i would be strongly suspicious of their own emotival satbility on
this issue, and thus their ability to come to the fair judgement
that is needed in this case.
Accusing the members of the ctte of potential mental
instability well in advance of any evidence of such is also strong
evidence of a mind set that would find it hard to fit into a team.
Based merely on your emails, your case, in my eyes, becomes weaker.


manoj
--
Less is more or less more Y_Plentyn on #LinuxGER
Manoj Srivastava <***@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Sven Luther
2006-11-25 21:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Sven Luther
In order to keep the objectivity and fairness of the technical
comittee ruling, all those technical comittee members who have a
vested interest in one side of this matter, and as thus are not able
for whatever reason to make an objective and fair decision, should
abstain from participating in this issue.
Which TC members do you think have a `vested interest' ?
Ok, just to inform you about one more event in this issue :

Yesterday, Frans sent out a mail for upload of per-arch 2.6.18-3 kernel
.udebs.

TYoday, i took the time to do so, despite the constraints and everything, and
the upload was :

From ***@ftp-master.debian.org Sat Nov 25 20:59:18 2006
From: Archive Administrator <***@debian.org>
To: Sven Luther <***@debian.org>,
Debian Install System Team <debian-***@lists.debian.org>
Cc: Debian Installer <***@ftp-master.debian.org>
Subject: linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6_1.24_powerpc.changes REJECTED
Message-Id: <E1Go3Pf-0003kP-***@ries.debian.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:42:11 +0000

reject as requested by debian-boot

If this is not a technical issue, i don't know what is. I am no more allowed
to upload packages ?

The DPL, and Anthony i speak to you here, is ignoring the issue, and letting
it drag on forever, since end of may when i appealed to you.

The TC is not interested in handling this.

The RMs didn't reply to my mail about the status of the powerpc d-i port.

The ftp-masters, or at least one of them, who is hiding anonymously, are
siding with Frans on this.

Ian, you are taking sides also, just because you don't want me to bother you
anymore.

What i see is that there is a deliberate attempt to drive me crazy, or at
least to ignore it while frans does it, debliberatedly or unconciously.

And it is succedding, already Sesse and dilinger are counceling i see a
psychiatrist.

I am very very disapointed in debian as a whole, more than 8 year i gave a
good chunk of my time to debian, and did a lot of work, but since a year or so
it is only frustration, and is driving me crazy. I cannot continue like this,
i simply cannot, and if some day i follow the steps of dato, well, i hope you
all who chose to look the other side, or bash on me for bothering them, will
then know the part of responsabilities you took in this.

Anthony, i urge you, and in this i mirror the words of Ian, get a group of
people willing to mediate on this, and investigate this issue, given how you
handled this, at least you owe me that.

This is a call for HELP. PLEASE SOMEONE DO SOMETHING PLEASE PLKEASE PLEASE
PLEASe.

I cannot take this any longer, I CANNOT ANOJOGVrwbn :noFA'LDV. C

SOMEONE SPEAK TO FRANS AND LET ME DO THE WORK I WANT AND CAN DO FOR DEBIAN, IS
THIS TOO MUCH TO ASK ?


PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEAASEP LEASEP LEASEPL PLEASE.

SOMEONE DO SOMETHING

PLEAse, don REJECT me after so many years, like a dirty paper, PLEASE.

DEBAIN IS MORE THAN THAN, OR AT LEAST SHOULD BE.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASEPLEASPELEAPSPLEASPLEPLGBon


DO SOMETHING..


HELP


lajFBPO:LM
Raul Miller
2006-12-07 21:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sven Luther
First, what is the issue exactly. I am totally at a loss to understand what it
is exactly what is reproached me, and feel that i am unfairly handled.
I'm going to try to tackle this:

In simplest form, [and limiting the context to Debian] the issue is "listening".

Of course, that's somewhat inaccurate. First off, we don't listen to email,
we read it. And, it's very apparent that Sven does spend considerable
time reading emails.

However there is reading and catching points here and there, and there
is reading and understanding the viewpoints and concerns of the person
who wrote them.

And, to some degree, no one really understands ALL that's being written in
the debian forums. No one has that kind of time. So we necessarily live
with some failures to comprehend.

But that doesn't mean that such failures are a good thing, it's just being
realistic that they exist. We just try and avoid those failures boiling
into a significant issue in areas that are important to us.

Anyways, back to Sven... Sven: as a prolific writer in these forums, you
have exposed yourself to far greater levels of misunderstanding than just
about anyone else. In part, no one has the time to even digest the
volumes you've written and understand why you wrote them. In part, you do
not allow yourself the time to digest what other people are saying. In part,
your interjections detract from the time people have available to study what
other people have to say.

And I think that, in a nutshell, is the issue. It's really only a serious issue
because it's not a temporary state of affairs, but something that continues
for years.

And... repetition can be a fine technique to get a point across, but getting
points doesn't happen if you're not understanding other people. You
won't know when they understand you just fine, you won't recognize
when they have a pertinent point to contribute, and you certainly won't
recognize when they don't understand you.

Anyways, if you're looking for someone to point at one specific thing
you've said, one specific issue, you're not going to get that. There's
plenty of problems which have been raised, and not resolved, but taking
any of those in isolation is an excellent way of missing the fundamental
issue. Taken in isolation, pretty much everything you've said is at least
tolerable and at times helpful. That said, you do not allow people to take
your statements in isolation.

And I think all people are asking from you is... more time (by a couple
orders, maybe, over what you currently grant) and a willingness to back off
when needed. Time on your part to digest what they are saying, and for you
to grant them the time and respect to understand the good points in what you
have to say. And if you can't grant that, what's the point?

That said, by this point many people seem to be rather unhappy (Sven
included), and that winds up being another issue in and of itself.

Finally, this is my point of view as a relatively disinterested observer. I've
probably overlooked a number of pointed comments which would incline
a person to disagree with my assessment. That kind of conflict is almost
inevitable with this kind of problem.
--
Raul
Loading...