On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 18:51 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > please see this as an advance warning. Uhm... guess I see it more as trying to oppress freedom speech Michael, I do understand that you have a short fuse recently, since you're involved in so many packages that do get quite heavily attacked in discussions... sometimes justified, sometimes not...
But if you now start threatening to "silence" people, just because they don't like you're (or other's) ideas than a quite concerning step has been reached. > If you don't stop this behaviour > of constantly attacking the GNOME upstream Well I guess if one breaks existing systems or usage scenarios, people complain about this but regardless one continues with that... it's no big surprise that the affected people get upset, is it? And I mean this bug isn't about bashing GNOME, people were using some GTK+ applications for years, and now they are pretty broken when used from outside of GNOME, and all others basically have to deal with this. All this isn't just "random accusations" as you claim here, just look at the mailing lists/bug trackers of KDE, mate, Cinnamon... they all have/had to deal with what GNOME usually unilaterally decides without taking any regard on others. I further don't think that the CoC forbids people to discuss political issues, so why do my comments about "whether GNOME should be allowed to remain part of Debian [if the light of the above problems]" should "attack" upstream or the Debian Maintainers. It's not more or less than any other difficult or controversial issues like the benefits/disadvantages of systemd (and note that I'm in favour of it), or whether we should have non-free, or how to deal with issues when e.g. Mozilla adds DRM to FF. Also you can't seriously claim I'd be the only one who is negatively affected by the recent developments of GNOME and who tries to deal with it (and you should perhaps note, that nobody here forced to get rid of CSDs, people just asked for a way to optionally don't use them - which is just the contrary behaviour of GNOME which forces it on all others). Also we've had many controversies about GNOME in the past, the tech-ctte ruling on NM, recently whether it should be the default DE or not, and so on. So as I've said, it's for sure not just me who has concerns. Anyway, long story short,... I didn't offend any of GNOME upstream personally, I just said I don't like the ways they go. Arguably, I used the term "GNOME mafia", but put a smiley next to it, which should make clear to everyone that it's meant jokingly. I'd assume many people makes similar jokes, like in systemd it's not so uncommon that even advocates of it "jokes" about Lennart, even himself does as e.g. here (https://plus.google.com/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/VUzeRLf5g5m). > and Debian team I can't remember of directly offending the Debian team. And even if, I guess it's a difference of "offending" someone, and just not agreeing with him. Anyway I see that at some point we two must have started off at a wrong foot,... I don't know why, maybe I said something wrong or you misinterpreted it,... may you just don't like the kind of issues I report (like all the issues I have with NM), nevertheless, even if you don't like to work on this issues (and of course you have no obligation), I'd guess that 99,9% of them are very real and it's therefore good to have them in the BTS. But I still can't see why you pick now exactly me trying to silence him. > and spouting > random accusations sprinkled with imaginary conspiracy theories Wich conspiracy theories? I thought it was well known that GNOME tries to be more self-contained, less taking regard on others (e.g. non-Linuxes, due to them not supporting systemd), there are the plans of GNOME OS, and so on. So nothing of this is just random theories o.O If the CoC actually forbids discussing about that, and how it (possibly negatively) affects Debian and or it's users... then the CoC might be a problem itself. And I seriously doubt that I'm the only one who has strong opinions and also phrases them as that - actually I think you're not much different, at least when looking back at the lengthy threads about the init system debate (even though I mostly agreed there with your points). > I'm > going to report this to the bts and list maintainers and ask for a ban, > as this is clearly in violation of our CoC. > > I've CCed them here so they are aware of this issue. So actually it turns it's not just a warning as you've claimed before, just that you didn't formally ask them to ban me. I feel really sad that you seem to have a problem with me, especially since you (co-)maintain many packages which have influence on me (GNOME, NM) or which strongly interest me (systemd)... but OTOH I don't see how to change this,... apparently we simply have different philosophies in some fields. Nevertheless, it's still a bit strange that you pick and report me now out from a bug, where you even didn't contribute before or shared your opinions or whatever. Honi soit qui mal y pense - but it seems a bit as if you'd have just waited for such opportunity. Anyway, since you've now already brought this up to the "formal authorities", and since I don't like the idea of having to alter my opinions and views in anticipatory obedience, just because you threaten to report me, I would ask the listmasters and BTS maintainers to not wait for the next opportunity when Michael doesn't like any of my views or contributions to Debian in form of bug reports of list discussions and immediately check whether I should be expelled from Debian. I guess I've made many bug reports and contributions to the lists, especially when it goes about security where I actually have very strong opinions (all towards "security first")... most of the time there were also other people agreeing with me, and in most cases of bug reports I think I just normally cooperate with the respective maintainers and so far the majority seemed to have welcomed my reports. My posts and bugs should be easy to find, mostly with cales...@scientia.net, but sometimes I might have accidentally used one of these addresses: m...@christoph.anton.mitterer.name cales...@gmail.com christoph.anton.mitte...@lmu.de christoph.anton.mitte...@physik.uni-muenchen.de For controversies between me and Michael, I guess the reports for NM packages would be the ones applying the most. Oh and if you should actually feel that Michael is right and Debian is better off with me being expelled, then please also tell me whether this is permanently or whatever. Cheers, Chris.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
