Proposal: GR to deal with effects of a personal dispute

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 273

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

There is a lamentable personal dispute between Sven Luther and some
other developers. There have been some attempts at reconciliation and
various offers, but none have succeeded in ending this dispute.

Two recent significant actions have been:
(a) Suspension of Sven Luther as a debian developer for 1 year
Message-ID: <87y7li1bys.fsf.TakeThisOut@vorlon.ganneff.de>
(b) Suspension of Sven Luther from debian-project
Message-ID: <20070529224705.GF3977.TakeThisOut@murphy.debian.org>

While (a) did not end the dispute, (b) has brought some peace to
debian-project, although some continued to discuss the issue.

I do not expect this proposal to end the dispute either because it
doesn't give everyone everything they want, but I hope that it will
move things on, bring more peace to debian development and allow
debian to be more fun for more people. As ever, if things change, we
can change this plan later.

- ---- START OF PROPOSAL ----

We resolve that:-

1. Sven Luther is suspended from all debian lists for a year, which
should be similar to (b), because the project generally liked his
two-month self-suspension and wishes not to receive his discussion
contributions at the moment.

2. However, Sven Luther should be allowed onto lists where Q posters
request it, where Q is half of the square root of the number of
posters last month.

3. Sven Luther is reinstated as a full developer, reversing (a),
because the project wishes to receive his technical contributions.

4. Evading the suspension will be regarded as a second offence of
header-forgery on lists.debian.org and should result in immediate
expulsion, as in the Debian Machine Usage Policies.

5. Discussion of Sven Luther is banned from all lists where he is
suspended, because there is no right of reply.

6. Acceptance or rejection of Sven Luther by projects, subprojects,
IRC channels and any other forums is left to their maintainers,
although we ask that they judge fairly.

7. We apologise publicly to everyone for not resolving this dispute
and thank everyone who has made attempts and offers to resolve it.

- ---- END OF PROPOSAL ----

Seconds, amendments, comments, please?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGXVaTmUY5euFC5vQRAhogAJ90DJh4jBI/nIPrmme9qU+OmHOyIgCdFp20
Khm+Fad1Uk3DbEWbYdjtR/0=
=RvVu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Frank Küster · External Since: Dec 08, 2005 Posts: 263

MJ Ray <mjr.TakeThisOut@phonecoop.coop> wrote:

> 1. Sven Luther is suspended from all debian lists for a year, which
> should be similar to (b), because the project generally liked his
> two-month self-suspension and wishes not to receive his discussion
> contributions at the moment.
[...]
> 3. Sven Luther is reinstated as a full developer, reversing (a),
> because the project wishes to receive his technical contributions.

It seems with 1 in operation, he cannot act his developer Powers
according to constitution 3.1, numbers 2 "propose or second draft
General Resolutions" and 3 "propose themselves as a Project Leader
candidate in elections".

Number 3 (as well as seconding in 2) could be easily resolved by
requiring him to do that through a personal relay. For proposing a GR,
I see neither a simple technical solution like this, nor anything else,
because of the fear of a GR DOS attack.

Regards, Frank
--
Dr. Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 273

Kalle Kivimaa <killer.RemoveThis@debian.org> wrote:
> MJ Ray <mjr.RemoveThis@phonecoop.coop> writes:
> > 2. However, Sven Luther should be allowed onto lists where Q posters
> > request it, where Q is half of the square root of the number of
> > posters last month.
>
> Does this place an undue burden on the listmasters?

I hope not. It's a should, not a must, so listmasters can prioritise
it like the rest of their burden. I'd expect it to be handled like new
list creation requests, but this leaves it up to those involved to choose
how they implement it (if at all).
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Sven Luther · External Since: Nov 08, 2004 Posts: 305

On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:50:48AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> There is a lamentable personal dispute between Sven Luther and some
> other developers. There have been some attempts at reconciliation and
> various offers, but none have succeeded in ending this dispute.
>
> Two recent significant actions have been:
> (a) Suspension of Sven Luther as a debian developer for 1 year
> Message-ID: <87y7li1bys.fsf.DeleteThis@vorlon.ganneff.de>
> (b) Suspension of Sven Luther from debian-project
> Message-ID: <20070529224705.GF3977.DeleteThis@murphy.debian.org>
>
> While (a) did not end the dispute, (b) has brought some peace to
> debian-project, although some continued to discuss the issue.

Notice that i don't accept full responsability for the suspension, and
that a really fair handling of this would have also mentioned all those
others who provided argument-less FUD mails. It takes two to wage a
flamewar.

> I do not expect this proposal to end the dispute either because it
> doesn't give everyone everything they want, but I hope that it will
> move things on, bring more peace to debian development and allow
> debian to be more fun for more people. As ever, if things change, we
> can change this plan later.
>
> - ---- START OF PROPOSAL ----
>
> We resolve that:-
>

> 1. Sven Luther is suspended from all debian lists for a year, which
> should be similar to (b), because the project generally liked his
> two-month self-suspension and wishes not to receive his discussion
> contributions at the moment.

The main point you are missing, that if you remove the suspension, and
debian claims something about the fault of the previous events to be
shared (which nobody disputes they are), then the list behaviour become
no more a problem than for other DDs waging random flamewars.

It would be much more easier to simply say :

2. The Debian project resolves that this issue be declared a thing of
the past, and whoever brings it up again will face (insert random
penalties), eventually after a warning or so, because error is human,
and mistakes do happen.

> 2. However, Sven Luther should be allowed onto lists where Q posters
> request it, where Q is half of the square root of the number of
> posters last month.
>
> 3. Sven Luther is reinstated as a full developer, reversing (a),
> because the project wishes to receive his technical contributions.
>
> 4. Evading the suspension will be regarded as a second offence of
> header-forgery on lists.debian.org and should result in immediate
> expulsion, as in the Debian Machine Usage Policies.

Hey, this is not needed, i am a man of word, as i have shown with the 2
month ban, and this portrays me as an evil doer, which i reject.

You don't need this clause.

> 5. Discussion of Sven Luther is banned from all lists where he is
> suspended, because there is no right of reply.

Why not simply join all list related issues in a common : discussion
about this dispute is banned from all lists, and let it be at that ?

> 6. Acceptance or rejection of Sven Luther by projects, subprojects,
> IRC channels and any other forums is left to their maintainers,
> although we ask that they judge fairly.

They should not complain if they get forked if there is a refusal, nor
feel pissed if some other media is chosen, but i guess that is common
sense Smile

MJ, l like this proposal, i think you are too heavy weight on the
unneeded technicalities. A much simpler and straightforward solution
would be :

===

1. Discussion about the problem <find a name being more neutral than
just me> is banned from all lists and irc channels. + some discussion
about penalties, with a first warning, and a more neutral wording.

2. Sven Luther is reinstated as a full developer, reversing (a),
because the project wishes to receive his technical contributions.

and then the paragraph about apologies.

===

Much more simpler, fair, and satisfactory. Also not making me a sub-DD
under a different law, while the fault is shared by more than just me.
Even if we used different means to handle the issue. One could compare
the relative gravity of an expulsion request with the two threads we had
these past days for example, ...

Thanks MJ for this,

Friendly,

Sven Luther

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 273

Bart Martens <bartm DeleteThis @debian.org> wrote: [...]
> GR's are, in my opinion, meant to handle more general decisions, like
> describing to what extent the listmasters are authorized to [silently]
> take actions for keeping good order on the mailing lists, for what
> actions the listmasters need the DPL's approval, and similar guidelines.

That's one opinion, but it's not what GRs can currently do. If that
bothers anyone enough, amend the constitution instead of noisily
refusing to support every GR that does stuff that GRs aren't "meant"
to do.

> > 7. We apologise publicly to everyone for not resolving this dispute
>
> I don't want to apologize in public to everyone for not having done any
> publicly visible attempt to resolve this dispute.

Cool. This proposal doesn't do that. It apolgises for not resolving
it, not for not attempting. The bit you snipped even thanks everyone
who has attempted, whether publicly-visible or not!

> So I will not support this GR proposal. Maybe I might support a GR that
> introduces practical guidelines for the listmasters and the DPL about
> taking immediate actions to keep order on the mailing lists.

I think it's very difficult to issue good practical guidelines, as it
depends on humanity and too many variables. What is acceptable on
debian-esperanto may be too offensive on debian-i18n, for example.

Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 273

Sven Luther <luther RemoveThis @debian.org> wrote: [...]
> The main point you are missing, that if you remove the suspension, and
> debian claims something about the fault of the previous events to be
> shared (which nobody disputes they are), then the list behaviour become
> no more a problem than for other DDs waging random flamewars. [...]

So if the GR contained: "2. Responsibility for the previous events is
shared." then that is an end to it, in your opinion?

> > 4. Evading the suspension will be regarded as a second offence of
> > header-forgery on lists.debian.org and should result in immediate
> > expulsion, as in the Debian Machine Usage Policies.
>
> Hey, this is not needed, i am a man of word, as i have shown with the 2
> month ban, and this portrays me as an evil doer, which i reject.
>
> You don't need this clause.

I hope we don't need that clause and I expect we don't need that
clause, but I want to leave it there just in case, as a warning. It
is not meant to portray anyone as an evil-doer - it is meant to record
unambiguously that we're already (at least) one step along that path.

> > 5. Discussion of Sven Luther is banned from all lists where he is
> > suspended, because there is no right of reply.
>
> Why not simply join all list related issues in a common : discussion
> about this dispute is banned from all lists, and let it be at that ?

Because future -vote threads should be allowed to revisit this if
people want.

[...]
> They should not complain if they get forked if there is a refusal, nor
> feel pissed if some other media is chosen, but i guess that is common
> sense Smile

Indeed.

> MJ, l like this proposal, i think you are too heavy weight on the
> unneeded technicalities. A much simpler and straightforward solution
> would be [...]

Sorry, I feel that proposal is too simple - it does not protect the
lists from others doing similar, or explain what will happen if you
fail or succeed. (And actually, it doesn't do a few other things that
you previously requested.) I regret that my proposal makes you a
named special case, but the suspension already did that.

Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Brian May · External Since: Nov 13, 2006 Posts: 102

>>>>> "MJ" == MJ Ray <mjr.TakeThisOut@phonecoop.coop> writes:

MJ> 1. Sven Luther is suspended from all debian lists for a year,
MJ> which should be similar to (b), because the project generally
MJ> liked his two-month self-suspension and wishes not to receive
MJ> his discussion contributions at the moment.

MJ> 3. Sven Luther is reinstated as a full developer, reversing
MJ> (a), because the project wishes to receive his technical
MJ> contributions.

Is it possible to act as a developer without mailing list access?

MJ> 4. Evading the suspension will be regarded as a second offence
MJ> of header-forgery on lists.debian.org and should result in
MJ> immediate expulsion, as in the Debian Machine Usage Policies.

I assume other people will be able to post on Sven's behalf, or would
this be considered "evasion"?

Or maybe it was intended that the above only apply for "deliberate
evasion by working around the restrictions" as opposed to accidental
once off evasion (e.g. IP addresses change for genuine reasons, email
addresses may change for genuine reasons) or somebody else posting on
Sven's behalf (presumably this person would be responsible for
ensuring the content is technical only).
--
Brian May <bam.TakeThisOut@snoopy.debian.net>

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Don Armstrong · External Since: Jan 24, 2005 Posts: 253

On Thu, 31 May 2007, Brian May wrote:
> Is it possible to act as a developer without mailing list access?

Yes, just as it's possible to act as a developer if you've been
excluded from using control DeleteThis @b.d.o; you just have to use an
intermediate who can send on messages on your behalf.

Don Armstrong

--
Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after they
have exhausted all other possibilities.
-Âœôòó W. Churchill

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Sven Luther · External Since: Nov 08, 2004 Posts: 305

On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 07:26:03PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sven Luther <luther DeleteThis @debian.org> wrote: [...]
> > The main point you are missing, that if you remove the suspension, and
> > debian claims something about the fault of the previous events to be
> > shared (which nobody disputes they are), then the list behaviour become
> > no more a problem than for other DDs waging random flamewars. [...]
>
> So if the GR contained: "2. Responsibility for the previous events is
> shared." then that is an end to it, in your opinion?

Sure, this is all i am asking. Not sure why everyone translates this to
"i won"t be satisfied if i don't get my way", which is more what the
other side has been showing, but then as i said, people judge me not on
what i say, but on what they believe i say.

> > > 4. Evading the suspension will be regarded as a second offence of
> > > header-forgery on lists.debian.org and should result in immediate
> > > expulsion, as in the Debian Machine Usage Policies.
> >
> > Hey, this is not needed, i am a man of word, as i have shown with the 2
> > month ban, and this portrays me as an evil doer, which i reject.
> >
> > You don't need this clause.
>
> I hope we don't need that clause and I expect we don't need that
> clause, but I want to leave it there just in case, as a warning. It
> is not meant to portray anyone as an evil-doer - it is meant to record
> unambiguously that we're already (at least) one step along that path.

Well, just look at the mail on -curiosa, or the various folk who have
been probvoking me on irc (like pusling for example, but they are
others), and that the fact that Frans used to bash me at the most minor
occasion in bug reports, and being overly sensitive seeing offense where
no offense was meant.

The main problem is that this has reached such a dramatic proportion,
where everyone is quite jumpy, like i was over the kernel team thingy
earlier.

So a most neutral "we won't mention this issue again, and everyone doing
so will be warned, and if he persists <insert random punishment>"
Immediate expulsion for a single mention, could be too hard.

> > > 5. Discussion of Sven Luther is banned from all lists where he is
> > > suspended, because there is no right of reply.
> >
> > Why not simply join all list related issues in a common : discussion
> > about this dispute is banned from all lists, and let it be at that ?
>
> Because future -vote threads should be allowed to revisit this if
> people want.

Yes, this is also an important point for the above. I expect to be
proposing a reform of the expulsion process, and it will make sense to
look at the current mess as an example of what has gone bad. Some may
interpret that badly, and ask for immediate expulsion though,
accordyingto 4. above.

In general, i am sure most DDs can be reasonable, and distinguish
between speaking about the issue in a constructive way, in order to
advance some other issue, over repeated whining, don't you think ?

> [...]
> > They should not complain if they get forked if there is a refusal, nor
> > feel pissed if some other media is chosen, but i guess that is common
> > sense Smile

>
> Indeed.
>
> > MJ, l like this proposal, i think you are too heavy weight on the
> > unneeded technicalities. A much simpler and straightforward solution
> > would be [...]
>
> Sorry, I feel that proposal is too simple - it does not protect the
> lists from others doing similar, or explain what will happen if you

Your proposal also don't protect the lists from others doing similar (if
i undertsood this well), it just protects then from me doing it.

> fail or succeed. (And actually, it doesn't do a few other things that
> you previously requested.) I regret that my proposal makes you a
> named special case, but the suspension already did that.

Indeed, and that is exactly the main reproach i have against this whole
mess. If everyone involved in it had been equally suspended, i would be
happy. I am not the sole responsible for this mess, why should i be the
only punished ? And a resolution which keeps this strong unfairness
exhibits the same problem as the previous resolutions.

> Hope that explains,

Yep, hope it is ok to discuss this here ...

Friendly,

Sven Luther

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Sven Luther · External Since: Nov 08, 2004 Posts: 305

On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:13:40PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007, Brian May wrote:
> > Is it possible to act as a developer without mailing list access?
>
> Yes, just as it's possible to act as a developer if you've been
> excluded from using control DeleteThis @b.d.o; you just have to use an
> intermediate who can send on messages on your behalf.

But then you are a stigmatized sub-DD, and not a DD anymore.

Do we really want to go into creating castes of DDs ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 273

Sven Luther <luther RemoveThis @debian.org> wrote:
> But then you are a stigmatized sub-DD, and not a DD anymore.

No, you are just a DD whose access to lists has been suspended.

> Do we really want to go into creating castes of DDs ?

No, but it's already happened. Let's move on.

Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 273

Brian May <bam RemoveThis @snoopy.debian.net> wrote:
> Is it possible to act as a developer without mailing list access?

I think so. Also, this leaves open the opportunity for other posters
to request that access be allowed again.

> I assume other people will be able to post on Sven's behalf, or would
> this be considered "evasion"?

I think that's forwarding, not evasion, like someone passing on a msg
from a banned in an IRC channel isn't usually regarded as evasion IME.

Will you second this?

Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 273

Bart Martens <bartm.DeleteThis@knars.be> wrote: [...]
> My point is that the Debian project has no responsibility in the
> mentioned personal dispute, so the Debian project should not apologise
> for not resolving that dispute in the name of all DD's. [...]

I disagree strongly with that. The project as a whole has some
responsibility for letting this continue in this way. At this point,
I feel that even an earlier bad solution that seriously harmed
debian's PPC support and Sven Luther's other work would have been less
damaging. We could all have had about a year of rebuilding already.
(Of course, a good solution now would still be better.)

Any resolution is issued by the project as a whole, not all DDs. When
it goes to a vote, each DD's support or opposition will be recorded.
That is why I feel position statements like an apology should be
issued by GR, not by delegates ignoring divisions.

If enough people object only to its inclusion, put an amendment
removing it on the ballot. I think it's healthy to apologise to our
users for this, but I'd still rather we acted now even if we don't
apologise, so I'd vote a non-apology action above FD.

Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Sven Luther · External Since: Nov 08, 2004 Posts: 305

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:47:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sven Luther <luther DeleteThis @debian.org> wrote:
> > But then you are a stigmatized sub-DD, and not a DD anymore.
>
> No, you are just a DD whose access to lists has been suspended.

A sub-DD all the same, what about all those others who participated in
those flamewars ? It takes two you know to create the mess we are in,
and i have done only replying to folk, and posted only a few posts by
myself.

> > Do we really want to go into creating castes of DDs ?
>
> No, but it's already happened. Let's move on.

I prefer fixing it, now is the right moment to solve it once and for all
in the right way.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Cord Beermann · External Since: Mar 17, 2005 Posts: 59

Hallo! Du (Sven Luther) hast geschrieben:

> A sub-DD all the same, what about all those others who participated in
> those flamewars ? It takes two you know to create the mess we are in,
> and i have done only replying to folk, and posted only a few posts by
> myself.

I really don't want to extend the block i added to d-project, so
please stop to refrain the 'the others have hit back first'-thing.

You are right, that it takes two to get a flamewar, but there is an
important pragmatic reason, why we stopped you and not the others
(yet): You are one, and the others are many, so it is easier to stop
the war that way.

This doesn't mean that listmasters will not act on other parties, if
we think it is appropriate.

Yours,
Cord, Debian Listmaster of the day
--
http://lists.debian.org

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Josselin Mouette · External Since: Nov 09, 2004 Posts: 1057

Le mercredi 30 mai 2007 à 11:50 +0100, MJ Ray a écrit :
> 1. Sven Luther is suspended from all debian lists for a year, which
> should be similar to (b), because the project generally liked his
> two-month self-suspension and wishes not to receive his discussion
> contributions at the moment.
>
> 2. However, Sven Luther should be allowed onto lists where Q posters
> request it, where Q is half of the square root of the number of
> posters last month.

I'd like to know what the listmasters think of this proposal.

First, is it reasonable to do, technically speaking, and how heavy a
burden would it place on you?

Second, do you fundamentally disagree with such an idea, or was it not
done until now because you were waiting for stronger requests from the
project?

I like the idea of this resolution, but I can't agree with it if it gets
too hard (technically or politically) for listmasters.
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
`- our own. Resistance is futile.

Sven Luther · External Since: Nov 08, 2004 Posts: 305

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:52:15AM +0000, Cord Beermann wrote:
> Hallo! Du (Sven Luther) hast geschrieben:
>
> > A sub-DD all the same, what about all those others who participated in
> > those flamewars ? It takes two you know to create the mess we are in,
> > and i have done only replying to folk, and posted only a few posts by
> > myself.
>
> I really don't want to extend the block i added to d-project, so
> please stop to refrain the 'the others have hit back first'-thing.
>
> You are right, that it takes two to get a flamewar, but there is an
> important pragmatic reason, why we stopped you and not the others
> (yet): You are one, and the others are many, so it is easier to stop
> the war that way.
>
> This doesn't mean that listmasters will not act on other parties, if
> we think it is appropriate.

Ok, can you provide a bit more guidelines about what i am allowed to,
and what not ? I believe that this was non-inflamatory,
non-too-quick-mailing, discussion with MJ Ray, and thus a legit post to
make.

What are the guidelines ? Or is it just that right now a certain amount
of people are too angry to be reasonable in these matters ? Well, we
could certainly setup a moratorium on all issues concerning this for a
week or so, but it should touch everyone.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Cord Beermann · External Since: Mar 17, 2005 Posts: 59

Hallo! Du (Josselin Mouette) hast geschrieben:

> > 2. However, Sven Luther should be allowed onto lists where Q posters
> > request it, where Q is half of the square root of the number of
> > posters last month.
>
> I'd like to know what the listmasters think of this proposal.
>
> First, is it reasonable to do, technically speaking, and how heavy a
> burden would it place on you?

formalized this would have to be handled like the creation of a list,
so someone would file a bug against lists.debian.org, get supporters,
we count someday and act accordingly. (would be a 2minute job)

> Second, do you fundamentally disagree with such an idea, or was it not
> done until now because you were waiting for stronger requests from the
> project?

politically... we don't want to be list police. we don't speak enough
languages and don't have the time to do that.

We run the lists, we have more enough to do to keep the spam level
low.

So the step-in and adding a ban on someone personal is an action of
last resort (and was in fact a result of strong requests), when
all other things fail (and it takes really at least two for a
flamewar).

If we really want to control about who is allowed to post to a
spoecific list, then we should switch over to moderation, and that has
to be handled by a moderators-team, which leaves the burden on other
people.

The current status quo, with one person banned from posting to
d-project is fine for me, i currently see no reason to extend the ban,
i more think about lifting that ban again someday, but for now we keep
an eye on the situation.

Cord, Listmaster, but not nessecarily speaking for the Listmaster-team.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 273

Sven Luther <luther.DeleteThis@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 07:26:03PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > So if the GR contained: "2. Responsibility for the previous events is
> > shared." then that is an end to it, in your opinion?
>
> Sure, this is all i am asking. Not sure why everyone translates this to
> "i won"t be satisfied if i don't get my way", which is more what the
> other side has been showing, but then as i said, people judge me not on
> what i say, but on what they believe i say.

I based everything in my proposal on things from the messages about
this dispute from various people, as far as I could. Even things
like the apology, which quickly drew one objection, arose from one
of your requests: Message-ID: <20070528152826.GB21917.DeleteThis@powerlinux.fr>

So, no, that isn't all you are asking. Please get straight with
yourself before complaining that others are getting confused.

> [...] Well, just look at [...], or [...] on irc [...]
> and [...] used to bash me [...] and [...]

I'm aware of most of that, so why keep repeating it? It's relevant to
how we got here, but is it relevant to what happens now?

Even if it is, I feel there's no need to detail it yet, so I'm
unlikely to reply to further emails containing detailed accusations.

[...]
> Indeed, and that is exactly the main reproach i have against this whole
> mess. If everyone involved in it had been equally suspended, i would be
> happy. I am not the sole responsible for this mess, why should i be the
> only punished ? And a resolution which keeps this strong unfairness
> exhibits the same problem as the previous resolutions.

Well, I've done what I said I would. I proposed a GR which
essentially replaces the DAM suspension with something that actually
acts against the problem of misbehaviour on the debian lists.

That's already a pretty difficult sell: see how few seconds it has so
far? I'm not going to make it even harder by trying to give any
less-frequent offenders the same punishment. To be honest, I think
this has a snowflake's chance in hell now and the project will be
lucky if this passes before it's irrelevant.

Discussions continue about the best way to stop list abuse in general
and I will second any human GR about it when the time comes.

Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Josselin Mouette · External Since: Nov 09, 2004 Posts: 1057

Le jeudi 31 mai 2007 à 11:03 +0000, Cord Beermann a écrit :
> politically... we don't want to be list police. we don't speak enough
> languages and don't have the time to do that.
>
> We run the lists, we have more enough to do to keep the spam level
> low.
>
> So the step-in and adding a ban on someone personal is an action of
> last resort (and was in fact a result of strong requests), when
> all other things fail (and it takes really at least two for a
> flamewar).
>
> If we really want to control about who is allowed to post to a
> spoecific list, then we should switch over to moderation, and that has
> to be handled by a moderators-team, which leaves the burden on other
> people.

Without making the lists moderated, having a moderation team, that would
be entitled to take such radical measures when necessary, would be an
improvement in this direction.

I guess that joins the "social committee" idea, although I don't like it
much because it would mean a group of people would know better than
others how to behave.

--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
`- our own. Resistance is futile.