On 27/12/18 11:17, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Dear Daniel. > > Daniel Pocock - 27.12.18, 05:41: >> On 21/12/18 09:25, Jonathan Dowland wrote: >>> I agree with Russ that your framing of this is absolutely abhorrent. >>> Your continued justification of it is digging a bigger hole. I beg >>> you, please take a step back and reconsider your approach here >>> before continuing along these lines. >> There is clear evidence of character assassination. I'd like to thank >> all those who responded after my cash bounty offer. Once again, I >> regret that we are in this situation where such methods are >> necessary. > I do not intend to comment on the other stuff discussed here, … as I > clearly do not have a complete picture of what is going on, just > fragments. > > However, I see setting bounties for "denouncing" people as harmful to > the Debian project.
Let me make it absolutely clear: the bounty is not for denouncing people, molesting them or any other bad behaviour. The bounty was offered as a request for factual information, for example, copies of emails and documents. To make an analogy, a bug bounty is not paid for cutting off the head of the developer responsible for the bug. I emphasized the need to reply privately: in other words, no money has been offered to publicly attack anybody. Before offering the bounty, I already knew enough about the situation to know it was more than wild speculation. Another benefit of this bounty was getting facts that clear the names of people who did not disseminate private or disparaging information. The person who disseminated information, Chris Lamb, owes an apology to DAM and AH for bringing the integrity of their processes into disrepute. > From what I see it would be most beneficial if the people who are > involved would just meet and speak about it from person to person or at > least in some kind of voice conference call. Maybe with a help of a > mediator, who is clearly not involved with the issue to be cleared up. That is excellent advice, in fact, I tried it well before offering the bounty. This is what I wrote to Chris Lamb in March 2018 "It seems we are both sometimes disappointed with the communications between ourselves. We both believe in the same things and we both believe in the integrity and reputation of the Debian project. Maybe the mode of communications isn't ideal. Could it be better for us to find an opportunity to discuss things in person perhaps? I am usually in the UK once per month, usually around Herts, currently I'm here until Thursday." Lamb has told me throughout this year he hasn't had time. Yet documents I received show me he found time to spread gossip. What is a better use of a leader's time, meeting a developer face to face or speculating behind their back at a time of personal tragedy? What is more likely to protect the project's reputation and what is more likely to backfire? Regards, Daniel
