On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 11:41:58AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > 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
Because you don't like to call it so, doesn't change the fact in the slightest. It does indeed do anyone a disservice, and it was the result of your direct choice. > 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. And i claim that Frans is currently in a position where he feels superior to me, and has been trying since over 8 month to disminish me, maybe unconciously. And this perfectly fits the "To reduce to a lower position" definition, where he is coming out blameless of this ugly mess, and i am set back in a subservient position. > > 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 A mediation, and a subsequent comprimise, is something where both sides point is seen, and a fair and honorable middle point is chosen, where everyone makes a step into the other direction. I claim you where not mediating, because there was no evidence that neither you or anyone involved ever had any kind of real discussion with Frans, and your judgement gave Frans the full reason, and me the full fault, and i was not even told beforehand of your sentence, nor was there any justification of it. This is more of the kind of a dictator or king passing judgement, than any kind of mediation. And the worse of it, is that the decision doesn't serve any kind of purpose, and there is not any technical justification of it, pure arbitrary and full support of Frans, despite your later claim that you don't agree fully with him the other day. Well, one thing are words, the others are actions, and your actions give him full support. > 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. I did propose compromises before you passed sentence, you didn't even reply to them. So, i was unfairly handled, and you made a joke of the mediation, and i should come to accept this. And you dare claim that i was not humiliated ? > > 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 But what you have done doesn't fix it either. > it brings them to the fore by requiring Frans and Sven to work closely > together on an ongoing basis. So what, i have agreed to work on the little things which are of interest to me, and which nobody is working on, and do so silently, which would have a much more acceptable compromise. Furthermore, if this inequality and Frans's need for superiorness over me was not there, then this issue would solved by itself months ago. So, you carry the whole responsability for this whole mess. > > 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. Maybe, but it is still ridiculous. And i am not even allowed to say so in public. > > - 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. No, they are fully in your hands, since your actions caused the current state of affair. > 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 Yeah, well, this is an untruth, the reality is that frans, and maybe joeyh and unamed third one doesn't want to deal with me. The rest of the d-i team is perfectly happy to work with me, and upto a point finds the current state of affair as stupid and ridiculous as i. But then, they don't speak in public about this (maybe of fear to be expulsed by frans too then for oposing him), but tell me, what effort did you take to speak to others of the d-i team during your mediation ? Can you give here a list of people you spoke to ? > 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. Ah, so that is it. I am supposed to sit aside, and let frans take some uninformed guesses that may or may not be correct, and not take the logical course of action, and ask the involved folk. Well, if he is unhappy about this, its his right, but that doesn't give him any right to kick me out of d-i as he did. I believe also that the case you mention, due to my intervention, has reached a much better outcome and brings movement forward, and everyone except maybe frans, is happy about this. > > 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. Indeed, because you as DPL lent all the support to Frans, and juftified him in his superiorness, and so he is never going to realize the wrongness of his actions. > > 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. The very first few minutes of this mess starting, i came to you as DPL and mediator, so that we didn't end in this mess. It is your incapacity of doing a good mediator job, which is the sole reason for this mess. You didn't leave me any other option, the TC rejected it and tacitly approved the use of debian infrastructure for social warfare, and the only path left ot me is this, or a GR. I believe this is the less damaging way. If you want, we can have this flamewar over a GR ? Would you prefer that ? > > 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. Ah, and do you have any prove over these diffamatory assertions ? As i see it, Frans can't be happy with me doing the work which needs doing and not being a subservient slave who never dares critic it. I even noticed this issue while trying to do constructive work, and Frans reproached it to me, that i tried to fix something *I* was the original author for, and should have asked Colin Watson for permission. So, no, this is pure uninformed (at best) bullshit. > 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. Ah, so, you said that if you had really wanted to mediate, you would have tried to change that or make it irrelevant. So by your own words, you agree that you didn't even attempt to mediate. And no, the current situation is not changed since the begining, it is exactly the same as the one i asked you to mediate over, and even my efforts these past months where not recognized or accepted, and it is clear that your decision has not made the issue irrelevant. Friendly, Sven Luther > > HTH. > > Cheers, > aj > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
