Disclaimer: This kind of social mess can only be solved in full transparency
and disclosure, thus public reply on the list. If you feel you will be
offended, please disregard this email instead. This paragraph should make it
quite easy to procmail it out if that is what you prefer.
On Sun, Jun
Hi,
I wanted to reply to this thread earlier, but I was busy with work and RL when
it started (and then escalated real fast). Now this got so much out of
control, that I cannot reply (publically) to this anymore, without spending
countless hours, which I dont have.
So I replied to Sven in
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
(CC'ing to d-private as the same misconception is seen there.)
On Saturday 17 June 2006 03:41, Anthony Towns wrote:
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
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 08:47:32AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
(CC'ing to d-private as the same misconception is seen there.)
On Saturday 17 June 2006 03:41, Anthony Towns wrote:
As far as everyone else is concerned, this is a disagreement between
Sven and Frans; and if Frans isn't willing to
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 09:05:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I strongly object to the fact that this issue keeps being reduced to a
problem between Sven and me. If other important members of the d-i team
Then please tell me who is with you on this.
So that you can verbally abuse them too?
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:53:52AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 09:05:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I strongly object to the fact that this issue keeps being reduced to a
problem between Sven and me. If other important members of the d-i team
Then please tell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 08:34:16PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 04:31:24PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
No, you keep bugging people about this on and on and on. That is not
taking a break.
Well, if Frans take
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:12:59PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:53:52AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
No, Frans and Joey are not the only members of the d-i team that have a hard
time working with you.
Ah, so you are the unnamed third one. Anyway, i guess you also
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:12:59PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:53:52AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I've put you on /ignore on IRC before, left IRC channels you were in, and
even had to walk away from the computer once or twice because of your
communication style.
On 6/17/06, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And what has that to do with anything ? I have no interest in
going into this hate-game, i want the situation solved, and be
able to commit as any normal DD would.
You have that already. There are 1000 DD's, and only a small
Eddy Petrişor wrote:
Is there any TECHNICAL reason for him not being given back SVN access?
Yes, it's very difficult to work on a subversion repository if someone
whom you have comprehensively killfiled is able to make changes to it.
Especially if you're one of a few people responsible for
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 09:45:37PM +0300, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
On 6/17/06, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not a clue.
== I don't know, aka lack of knowledge, aka diletantism (I am not sure
if this word is too strong)
No interest either
== I don't care, aka ignorance
-- how
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 07:26:52PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:12:59PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:53:52AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
No, Frans and Joey are not the only members of the d-i team that have a
hard
time working with
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 09:45:37PM +0300, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
Heck, there are translators which have access to D-I SVN (me being one
of them), and Sven's has been revoked? Yes, he might have said that he
will not do D-I work, but he has changed his mind. Is that a reason
not to give it back?
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 02:06:41AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 07:26:52PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:12:59PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:53:52AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
No, Frans and Joey are not the only
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 03:46:38PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Eddy Petrişor wrote:
Is there any TECHNICAL reason for him not being given back SVN access?
Yes, it's very difficult to work on a subversion repository if someone
whom you have comprehensively killfiled is able to make changes to
Disclaimer: This kind of social mess can only be solved in full transparency
and disclosure, thus public reply on the list. If you feel you will be
offended, please disregard this email instead.
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 02:17:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 02:06:41AM
Disclaimer: This kind of social mess can only be solved in full transparency
and disclosure, thus public reply on the list. If you feel you will be
offended, please disregard this email instead.
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 11:09:49PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
However, what I do *not* understand
Disclaimer: This kind of social mess can only be solved in full transparency
and disclosure, thus public reply on the list. If you feel you will be
offended, please disregard this email instead.
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 10:42:17AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:12:59PM
On Sunday 18 June 2006 10:37, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Disclaimer: This kind of social mess can only be solved in full
transparency and disclosure, thus public reply on the list. If you feel you
will be offended, please disregard this email instead.
Sven has repeatedly and
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 02:37:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Indeed. But the problem here is not the proposal itself, but the way
communication was handled back then, and which this is mostly a continuation
of. Do you see why i am so exasperated and desesperate ? And if you count all
those
On Sunday 18 June 2006 11:43, Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now he [Sven] has posted content from debian-private to a public list.
I've just checked the archives, it seems that the thread in question
originated on debian-boot and was CC'd to debian-private. So Sven didn't
copy
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 02:48:59AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...] [The DPL] clearly mentioned that the only way to solve this
was going through the TC (of which as i was told 3 members are already against
me even without considering the issues) or a GR.
The only other *possible* ways you can
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 01:29:24AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:38:00PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Hi all,
I think that the situation with my commit access to the d-i svn repo is
getting burdersome and over ridiculous.
snip/
So, i want to know now, from
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 01:33:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:38:00PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I think that the situation with my commit access to the d-i svn repo is
getting burdersome and over ridiculous.
Sven, you've already ignored my recommendation on how
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 08:23:59AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 01:29:24AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
[ d-i team member asks opinions of d-i team members ]
My recommendation:
Do a while something completely
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 09:38:47AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 08:23:59AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 01:29:24AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
[ d-i team member asks opinions of d-i team members ]
My recommendation:
Do a while
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 09:22:18PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Gaining back the confidence would have been a very long process and
A very long process ? This is clearly the ridiculous part. And what is frans
going to do to regain my confidence ?
Your comments throughout this painful (for
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 01:37:48AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 09:22:18PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Gaining back the confidence would have been a very long process and
A very long process ? This is clearly the ridiculous part. And what is frans
going to do to
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, let alone
humiliating. If you would like to setup your
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 11:33:23PM +1000, 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
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 09:38:47AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 08:23:59AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 01:29:24AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
[ d-i team member asks opinions of d-i team members ]
My
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 04:09:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
And what has that to do with anything ? I have no interest in going into this
hate-game, i want the situation solved, and be able to commit as any normal DD
would.
You have that already. There are 1000 DD's, and only a small portion
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,
I have no idea what you're trying to say with moral harcelement, but no,
I think the right word is harassment. Harcèlement is the French
word.
harcèlement moral is now an accepted reason for employees to sue
their employers in France (and I would guess in many other countries)
to define the
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 04:43:12PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 04:09:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
And what has that to do with anything ? I have no interest in going into
this
hate-game, i want the situation solved, and be able to commit as any normal
DD
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 07:05:57PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
I have no idea what you're trying to say with moral harcelement, but no,
I think the right word is harassment. Harcèlement is the French
word.
harcèlement moral is now an accepted reason for employees to sue
their
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 04:31:24PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Anyway, I suggest you do as so many people have suggested before. Keep
working, send patches and try really hard to stay on everybodies good
side for a while. Yes, it is more trouble,
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 11:31:49PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 04:31:24PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Anyway, I suggest you do as so many people have suggested before. Keep
working, send patches and try really
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 08:40:32PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 04:43:12PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 04:09:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
And what has that to do with anything ? I have no interest in
going into this hate-game, i want the
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
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:44:15AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 08:40:32PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 04:43:12PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 04:09:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
And what has that to do with
Hi all,
I think that the situation with my commit access to the d-i svn repo is
getting burdersome and over ridiculous.
I have in the past few weeks made every effort to be nice to Frans, both on irc,
and in mailing list, the only exception that could be considered as anything
but nice would be
(please only public answers. No /msg on IRC))
Sven, There are (were?) people in the D-I team who are (were?) still
hoping that one way to solve this situation can be found.
Up to today, I was still in the mood of putting some hope that you
would understand that your current conflict with
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 08:46:39PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
(please only public answers. No /msg on IRC))
Sven, There are (were?) people in the D-I team who are (were?) still
hoping that one way to solve this situation can be found.
Up to today, I was still in the mood of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:38:00PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Hi all,
I think that the situation with my commit access to the d-i svn repo is
getting burdersome and over ridiculous.
snip/
So, i want to know now, from the other members of the
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:38:00PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I think that the situation with my commit access to the d-i svn repo is
getting burdersome and over ridiculous.
Sven, you've already ignored my recommendation on how to deal with this,
and the question remains before the technical
48 matches
Mail list logo
