On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 04:50:50PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > On Friday 16 June 2006 15:33, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 11:24:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > There is *NO* technical reason which warrant his action, and the only > > > reason he does it is to humiliate and punish me. > > > > You're the only one here who thinks that's a punishment, > He's not, furthermore everyday use of the english language clearly supports > that vision: [...] > > Sven lossed his commit rights because because of his offences, I'd say that > fits 2 above nicely, no?
Then I have to ask you to please stop thinking in that manner. Punishment and humiliation are not what this is about, and imagining that it is does a disservice to both the d-i team and Sven. The reason Sven's access was removed and the reason it's not being reinstated is that Sven is unable and unwilling to work with Frans, and Frans is likewise unwilling to work with Sven. Assigning blame for that isn't a useful activity, and is likely harmful since it will only make one or both of Sven and Frans less willing to work with the other. > > let alone "humiliating". > that's subjective, clearly he experiences it as humiliating. that may or may > not be how you would feel in his shoes (for whatever instatiation of you). Since we're quoting dictionary definitions: ] To reduce to a lower position in one's own eyes, or in the ] eyes of others; to cause a loss of pride or dignity; to ] humble; to mortify. As far as everyone else is concerned, this is a disagreement between Sven and Frans; and if Frans isn't willing to pretend that there's no problem and give Sven access to subversion, that may well be Sven's problem, or it might be Frans', or it might just be the way things are. Anyone who does think losing access to a repository puts you in a lower position is mistaken, and that includes Sven. > The feelings on both sides simply are, the > mediator refusing to acknowledge the feelings of one of the parties is > _not_ helpfull. (and that's probably the basis for Sven saying that you > weren't mediating) No, the basis for Sven saying I wasn't mediating is that I didn't give him what he wanted -- that is, I didn't insist Frans reinstate his access. Sven's been very consistent on being only willing to accept that as the final outcome, and repeatedly suggested alternative compromises in order to achieve that. Unfortunately, that's simply not a plausible outcome. I hope Sven will accept that at some point, but I haven't seen any evidence of it to this point. > What purpose is being served by making Sven jumpt through hoops when making > technical contributions to D-I? How does it help fix the social issues > between Sven and Frans in any way? Reinstating subversion access doesn't fix the social issues either. Worse it brings them to the fore by requiring Frans and Sven to work closely together on an ongoing basis. > Net effect at this point seems to be: > - extra work for those playing middle man for Sven's commits and Sven > himself They're happy to do this. > - bad feelings and frustration on Sven's part (neither of which is likely to > help improve communications) > - lots of flames on the issue everywhere, and resulting frustration all > around And both of those are entirely within Sven's control. The positive that you missed is "Frans, and the rest of the d-i team, don't have to deal with Sven being part of their team", which means they can get on with their work without having to worry extensively about Sven throwing a temper tantrum when his patches stop working, trying to overrule the d-i lead by going to the release managers, or whatever else. > Meanwhile I have seen Sven make an honest (though imperfect) effort to > improve the way he communicates. Again, no matter how much effort he's put in, it hasn't actually achieved anything. > Frankly at this point I don't see how > refusing to give Sven back commit rights (which he never abused AFAIK) is > helping anything. Giving back his commit rights at this point would imply that the best way to deal with someone acting in a way you disagree with is to call them fascists, hypocrites, abuse them on IRC, and start thread after thread on how you've been unfairly mistreated on multiple lists, until everyone gets so fed up with you they just do what you want. > Apperently you don't share this opinion, could you as mediator explain what > gains you see in refusing Sven commit rights still? Cause standing here on > the peanut gallery I'm not seeing any. Commit rights is a stand in for being part of the d-i team; Sven continues to demonstrate he can't work productively with the d-i team, so certainly should not be a member of that team. Any mediation whatsoever needs to accept that that's the case currently, and either work to change it, or find some way of making it irrelevant. Unfortunately Sven is so far unwilling to accept that, so there's simply no possibility of any successful compromise at this point. HTH. Cheers, aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
