Might I suggest that Miles and the rest of us have had as much of a
meeting of minds as we can in the media of email and that this thread
has drifted into noise? In my oopinion continuing would do more harm
than good.
--Sam
On 1/11/19 8:28 AM, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Miles Fidelman writes:
On 1/10/19 5:28 PM, Matthew Vernon wrote:
...which is why, of course, the Debian project has said that we won't
accept racist/sexist/homophobic/etc language in our spaces, because we
want a broad range of people to feel
Miles Fidelman writes:
> No. I may mind, but I sure don't want others minding on my behalf. I
> find THAT offensive.
Then I won't do that for you.
But I'm sure you realize that your experience is not universal among all
of humanity, and some people *do* want other people minding on their
Miles Fidelman writes:
> On 1/10/19 5:28 PM, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>>
>> ...which is why, of course, the Debian project has said that we won't
>> accept racist/sexist/homophobic/etc language in our spaces, because we
>> want a broad range of people to feel welcome in our community. I don't
>>
On 1/10/19 5:28 PM, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Miles Fidelman writes:
At the risk of repeating myself: I'm a firm believer in applying
Postel's law to email discussions - "be conservative in what you do,
be liberal in what you accept from others." Personally, I try to
observe both parts of it,
Miles Fidelman writes:
> At the risk of repeating myself: I'm a firm believer in applying
> Postel's law to email discussions - "be conservative in what you do,
> be liberal in what you accept from others." Personally, I try to
> observe both parts of it, but I see more and more people doing
On 1/10/19 3:02 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 07:20:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 07:20:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > > People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think
> > > > about
> > >
On 1/10/19 12:00 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Wed, 2019-01-09 at 19:20 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think
On Wed, 2019-01-09 at 19:20 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> > Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > > People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think
> > > > about
> > > >
Josh Triplett writes:
> If you have to have your "guard up" to avoid hurting people, you have a
> more fundamental problem.
> It really *isn't* that hard to just think about the effect of your words
> on others *all the time*. As Russ said, that's a fundamental skill.
Eh... I do think that
On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about
what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd. Everyone else in the
world is doing this all
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about
> > what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd. Everyone else in the
> > world is doing this all the time.
>
> There are times
Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> Thanks! It's actually high on my list. I've been waiting for it to
> mature just a bit, and it seems to have. Any observations on how it
> stacks up for a production server? Anything else that strikes you as a
&g
Miles Fidelman writes:
> I was watching the discussion on systemd fairly closely. I could be
> wrong, but very little of the discussions over systemd seemed to reflect
> folks who managed production servers, or kernel developers, or developers
> of key backend software (Apache, MySQL, Postfix,
Miles Fidelman - 08.01.19, 18:16:
> > I would have been very surprised if you had told me 6 months ago
> > that
> > I would be writing this, but:
> >
> > Please consider Devuan as an alternative. You have probably seen
> > awful mails from one or two very toxic trolls pushing Devuan, but
> > the
]] Miles Fidelman
> Well, first off, the process led to the resignation of the chair of
> the Technical Committee - out of a feeling that the process had become
> too "personalized."
JFTR (since this keeps being brought up, otherwise I'd much rather we
just let this lie): Ian was not chair of
On 1/8/19 8:28 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
I've basically been nursing a couple of aging systems. When next I do a
major upgrade to our server farm, It will be to something other than
Debian. Until then, the pressure hasn't been there
> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes:
Scott> On Monday, January 07, 2019 07:06:28 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Miles Fidelman writes: > On the
>> other hand, the IETF seems to do just fine - with a much larger >
>> base of participants, and a lot more room for discussion and
Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> I've basically been nursing a couple of aging systems. When next I do a
> major upgrade to our server farm, It will be to something other than
> Debian. Until then, the pressure hasn't been there, and I've been -
On 05/01/2019 21:24, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I also have a lot of sympathy for people who feel they have been marginalized
> and it being worth working on making them feel welcome/not marginalized, but
> I
> think it has limits (and maybe this is the core of my concern relative to the
>
On 2019-01-08 11:23, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On 1/8/19 4:57 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 04:16:15AM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> What I am asserting is that the Debian Social Contract explicitly states
>>> that:
>>>
>>> "4. Our priorities are our users and free
On 1/8/19 4:57 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 04:16:15AM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
What I am asserting is that the Debian Social Contract explicitly
states that:
"4. Our priorities are our users and free software
…
I DO assert that, as one user, I don't see this
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 04:16:15AM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
What I am asserting is that the Debian Social Contract explicitly
states that:
"4. Our priorities are our users and free software
…
I DO assert that, as one user, I don't see this being honored in the
breach, with decisions
On 1/7/19 11:10 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Miles Fidelman writes:
On 1/7/19 10:06 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Speaking as someone who is a listed author on three published RFCs and
chaired one IETF working group, I will take Debian process over IETF
process any day, and find your description of the
On 1/7/19 10:58 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Miles Fidelman writes:
I think you're minimizing the level of investment & commitment it takes
to either use Debian, particularly in production, and even more,
minimizing the efforts of upstream, and kernel, developers upon whom
Debian ultimately
Miles Fidelman writes:
> On 1/7/19 10:06 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Speaking as someone who is a listed author on three published RFCs and
>> chaired one IETF working group, I will take Debian process over IETF
>> process any day, and find your description of the IETF pretty
>> entertaining. :)
Miles Fidelman writes:
> I think you're minimizing the level of investment & commitment it takes
> to either use Debian, particularly in production, and even more,
> minimizing the efforts of upstream, and kernel, developers upon whom
> Debian ultimately depends.
I really don't think I am,
On 1/7/19 10:06 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Miles Fidelman writes:
On the other hand, the IETF seems to do just fine - with a much larger
base of participants, and a lot more room for discussion and debate on
contentious issues. Global infrastructure, with distributed ownership,
lots of
On Monday, January 07, 2019 07:06:28 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
> Miles Fidelman writes:
> > On the other hand, the IETF seems to do just fine - with a much larger
> > base of participants, and a lot more room for discussion and debate on
> > contentious issues. Global infrastructure, with
On 1/7/19 9:12 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Miles Fidelman writes:
Well, first off, the process led to the resignation of the chair of the
Technical Committee - out of a feeling that the process had become too
"personalized."
Some decisions are just hard. I think nearly all of us involved in
Miles Fidelman writes:
> On the other hand, the IETF seems to do just fine - with a much larger
> base of participants, and a lot more room for discussion and debate on
> contentious issues. Global infrastructure, with distributed ownership,
> lots of stakeholders, all held together by
On 1/7/19 8:48 PM, Eldon Koyle wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 6:18 PM Miles Fidelman
wrote:
On 1/7/19 7:57 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 01:47:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
On 1/7/19 10:57 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in D
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 6:18 PM Miles Fidelman
wrote:
>
> On 1/7/19 7:57 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 01:47:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >> On 1/7/19 10:57 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >>> Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censors
On 1/7/19 7:57 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 01:47:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
On 1/7/19 10:57 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
On 1/6/19 1:38 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
[systemd stuff]
[systemd stuff]
I
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 01:47:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On 1/7/19 10:57 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> > > On 1/6/19 1:38 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > [systemd stuff]
> > > [sys
Ian,
On 1/7/19 10:57 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
On 1/6/19 1:38 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
[systemd stuff]
[systemd stuff]
I appreciate that the fights over systemd have been a defining
experience for many of us. Many of us are st
Ian Jackson - 07.01.19, 19:00:
> > For me, any code of conduct and its enforcement needs to be based on
> > actual behavior, never on assuming intentions or assuming about how
> > people are.
>
> Once again, there is a difference between *assuming* and *inferring*.
>
> I doubt this will really
Jan 7, 2019, 3:57 PM by ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>
> The issues are very different. And the toxic emotional and political
> baggage from the init system stuff is really bad. So bringing init
> system stuff into this conversation about acceptable conduct just
> increases the hurt and
Martin Steigerwald writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> Ian Jackson - 05.01.19, 18:17:
> > Very competently toxic people will calculate precisely what they can
> > get away with: they will ride roughshod over weak victims or in
> > situations with less visibility;
Hello,
Ian Jackson - 07.01.19, 16:57:
> Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> > On 1/6/19 1:38 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > [systemd stuff]
> >
> > [systemd stuff]
>
> I appreciate that the fights over systemd have been a def
On 1/6/19 1:38 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 03:43:33PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
It sure seems that, in some sectors, disagreement is offensive, and offense
trumps substance. (One might point to our current President in that regard,
as well.)
I kind of wonder if Debian
On January 6, 2019 12:29:26 PM UTC, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 04:24:32PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 05, 2019 08:42:57 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
>> > Hello Russ, Scott,
>> >
>> > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 11:44am -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> > > Scott
Hello,
On Sat 05 Jan 2019 at 04:24pm -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I think that's pretty close to it.
Cool.
> My bottom line is that today is a very divisive time in the world with many
> forces trying to drive wedges between groups and force people into one camp or
> another and then 'hate'
On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 04:24:32PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Saturday, January 05, 2019 08:42:57 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Hello Russ, Scott,
> >
> > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 11:44am -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Scott Kitterman writes:
> > >> I am concerned about Debian becoming
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 12:04:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
> maybe I should also consider
> staying a bit more quiet. I don't have to; I can just speak my mind
> anyway, but when I do, there's a higher than normal chance I might need to
> apologize afterwards.
Well, maybe not in your
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 03:43:33PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> It sure seems that, in some sectors, disagreement is offensive, and offense
> trumps substance. (One might point to our current President in that regard,
> as well.)
> I kind of wonder if Debian is headed that way - given the way
Martin Steigerwald writes:
> Ian Jackson - 05.01.19, 18:17:
>> Very competently toxic people will calculate precisely what they can
>> get away with: they will ride roughshod over weak victims or in
>> situations with less visibility; when challenged by an authority who
>> can impose
Dear Ian.
Ian Jackson - 05.01.19, 18:17:
> Very competently toxic people will calculate precisely what they can
> get away with: they will ride roughshod over weak victims or in
> situations with less visibility; when challenged by an authority who
> can impose consequences, they will lie and
On 2019/01/05 23:24, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Military pilots of aircraft with ejection seats are limited both to a minimum
> and maximum height. It's not fair that if that's your dream job that you are
> excluded because you are too tall or too short, but it just isn't
> economically
> or
On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 04:24:32PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I also have a lot of sympathy for people who feel they have been
> marginalized and it being worth working on making them feel welcome/not
> marginalized, but I think it has limits (and maybe this is the core of my
> concern
On Saturday, January 05, 2019 08:42:57 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Russ, Scott,
>
> On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 11:44am -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Scott Kitterman writes:
> >> I am concerned about Debian becoming over-politicized (beyond the core
> >> issue of Free Software, which has an
Hello Russ, Scott,
On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 11:44am -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes:
>> I am concerned about Debian becoming over-politicized (beyond the core
>> issue of Free Software, which has an inherent political aspect). I like
>> that the diversity statement isn't
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about
> > what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd. Everyone else in the
&g
On 05.01.19 02:20, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Another action: people treating you poorly in ways over which they
> have personal discretion, such as refusing to work with you, calling
> you rude names, attacking you in public, and so forth, because of
> what you say or publish. We'll call that
On 05.01.19 01:57, Eldon Koyle wrote
> Whether that form of censorship is good or bad or rights-infringing
> is a separate argument.
Thank you, that's exactly the point I was trying to make.
I'm not even arguing whether this specific action was good or bad or
rights-infringing.
--
Christian
On 04.01.19 23:44, Philip Hands wrote:
> Christian Kastner writes:
>
>> We agree on this: Debian's is a (very!) limited form of government.
>> However, I argue that censorship is within these limits.
>
> Debian doesn't even have enough legal existence to open a bank account,
> let alone apply
Anthony Towns writes:
> There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying
> before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends",
> or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down".
> I think it's probably news to a lot of people that Debian isn't
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about
> what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd. Everyone else in the
> world is doing this all the time.
There are times when you don't have to think
Eldon Koyle writes:
> In regards to the use of the word 'censorship', looking at the
> definition[1][2][3] of the word seems to support its use in regards to
> a-h removing feeds from planet for being objectionable (and does not
> imply any infringement on rights). Whether that form of
Hi Philip,
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 3:45 PM Philip Hands wrote:
>
> Christian Kastner writes:
>
> > We agree on this: Debian's is a (very!) limited form of government.
> > However, I argue that censorship is within these limits.
>
> Debian doesn't even have enough legal existence to open a bank
Christian Kastner writes:
> We agree on this: Debian's is a (very!) limited form of government.
> However, I argue that censorship is within these limits.
Debian doesn't even have enough legal existence to open a bank account,
let alone apply even the lightest form of coercion to someone.
How
Jonathan Carter writes:
> On 2019/01/04 15:44, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Note that I'm not talking about refusing to republish (I know what that
>> is). I'm talking about declining to speak based on concern about
>> disproportionate reaction from our leadership/delegates for doing so
>> (I'm
On 1/4/19 2:44 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Scott Kitterman writes:
For clarification from me, I don't expect a consequence free
free-for-all where anything at all can be said with no repercussions.
There are absolutely things that are not acceptable, but on the other
hand, I also don't think
Hi Scott
On 2019/01/04 15:44, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Note that I'm not talking about refusing to republish (I know what that is).
> I'm talking about declining to speak based on concern about disproportionate
> reaction from our leadership/delegates for doing so (I'm also not arguing
> that
Roberto C. Sánchez writes:
> I think that perhaps the source of Scott's concern (and to an extent my
> own) is that it is not necessarily obvious where the boundary is when it
> comes to Debian. The uncertainty here is the problem. I deal with it
> by trying to remain well away from the
Scott Kitterman writes:
> For clarification from me, I don't expect a consequence free
> free-for-all where anything at all can be said with no repercussions.
> There are absolutely things that are not acceptable, but on the other
> hand, I also don't think "someone was offended" is a reasonable
On Friday, January 04, 2019 10:55:51 AM Russ Allbery wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes:
> > Nonsense unless you define being an adult as completely and fully
> > understanding exactly what the hundreds of people around the world think
> > is reasonable.
>
> Anyone who has held down a job in a
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Roberto C. Sánchez writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:17:56AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Scott Kitterman writes:
>
> >>> If censorship isn't the right word (and at best, it's not ideal), what's
> >>> the right word for the
Scott Kitterman writes:
> Nonsense unless you define being an adult as completely and fully
> understanding exactly what the hundreds of people around the world think
> is reasonable.
Anyone who has held down a job in a typical workplace has already shown
that they can understand what's
Roberto C. Sánchez writes:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:17:56AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Scott Kitterman writes:
>>> If censorship isn't the right word (and at best, it's not ideal), what's
>>> the right word for the chilling effect on willingness to speak in public
>>> due to the risk of
On Friday, January 04, 2019 10:17:56 AM Russ Allbery wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes:
> > If censorship isn't the right word (and at best, it's not ideal), what's
> > the right word for the chilling effect on willingness to speak in public
> > due to the risk of being ejected from an organization
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:17:56AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes:
>
> > If censorship isn't the right word (and at best, it's not ideal), what's
> > the right word for the chilling effect on willingness to speak in public
> > due to the risk of being ejected from an
Scott Kitterman writes:
> If censorship isn't the right word (and at best, it's not ideal), what's
> the right word for the chilling effect on willingness to speak in public
> due to the risk of being ejected from an organization like Debian?
Being an adult.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)
On 04/01/2019 14.34, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:39:27PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote:
>> On 21/12/2018 01.27, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
>>> We are not a Government.
>>
>> We don't have a _Sovereign_ Government, but a Government we most
>> certainly have.
>>
>> We are
On Friday, January 04, 2019 01:34:41 PM Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:39:27PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote:
> >On 21/12/2018 01.27, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> >> We are not a Government.
> >
> >We don't have a _Sovereign_ Government, but a Government we most
> >certainly
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:39:27PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote:
>On 21/12/2018 01.27, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
>> We are not a Government.
>
>We don't have a _Sovereign_ Government, but a Government we most
>certainly have.
>
>We are a body of people bound by a Constitution; this body has
On 21/12/2018 01.27, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> We are not a Government.
We don't have a _Sovereign_ Government, but a Government we most
certainly have.
We are a body of people bound by a Constitution; this body has
Officials acting on its behalf; we vote to represent our interests; we
also sprach Steve Langasek [2018-12-29 06:21 +0100]:
Regardless of anything else, this is not unconstitutional. The constitution
gives the DPL the power to delegate decisions about approving and expelling
developers;
Correct, but this wasn't about approving or expelling developers.
--
.''`.
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:44:38PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> Instead, DAM ruled a verdict, and influenced other people to the
> point that "because DAM ruled" was given as a reason for other
> measures. This was an unconstitutional abuse of DAM's powers,
Regardless of anything else, this is
also sprach Gunnar Wolf [2018-12-27 14:48 +0100]:
He considered he didn't get a right to be heard, nor notified about
the process as it was progressing towards a decision, but only
notified about a final decision.
I would like to add that this — being presented with a decision,
without any
On 28/12/18 07:42, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 05:35:38PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
>> Whether DD -> DM demotions will happen again and are going to become a
>> new tool for solving social conflicts is an important decision that
>> needs an open discussion where conesnsus
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 07:48:40AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Of course, I don't think Norbert was literal characterizing the
> situation as a gulag. I don't think anybody here thought he was. I
> don't think Norbert expected anybody to have an image of him starving
> to death or chilled in the
Le Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 05:35:38PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
>
> Whether DD -> DM demotions will happen again and are going to become a
> new tool for solving social conflicts is an important decision that
> needs an open discussion where conesnsus is being sought.
Unsurprisingly there are
This entire thread is so cringy, this is likely my last reply.
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 9:31 PM Norbert Preining wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2018, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> > Please, all, get some perspective and stop with the comparisons to labor
> > camps, targeted killings, prisons
Paul R. Tagliamonte dijo [Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 10:36:08AM -0500]:
> > So where is the difference to a closed military court or gulag general?
>
> I strongly encourage you to read about Gulags and understand for both
> mlitary tribunal and prison camp, the result is often death. Debian can not
>
Paul,
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> Please, all, get some perspective and stop with the comparisons to labor
> camps, targeted killings, prisons and sentences of death. We sound like
You did not understand the meaning of this comparison: The point was
that the correct agreed
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018, 9:59 AM Norbert
> So where is the difference to a closed military court or gulag general?
>
I strongly encourage you to read about Gulags and understand for both
mlitary tribunal and prison camp, the result is often death. Debian can not
kill you. Debian can't silence you.
Hi Enrico,
> raised issues instead of listening to them. In particular, this part of
> your reply to the antiharassment team, that you chose to leave out when
> reposting it here on -project:
I left it out because I wrote exactly this in my email to you, that I
want to keep the answer about who
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 01:13:53AM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> For those not aware of the issue, here is *my* view onto the events.
> AH and DAM can answer and provide their own interpretation. I will try
> to stay as objective as it is possible for me.
As written in the message we
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 05:35:38PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> But concerning the demotion to Debian Maintainer (DM) status, I think
> that it is sending a wrong message to the community, that DMs do not
> need to hold the same standards of behaviour as Debian Developers (DDs)
> do.
>
>
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 05:35:38PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> But concerning the demotion to Debian Maintainer (DM) status, I think
> that it is sending a wrong message to the community, that DMs do not
> need to hold the same standards of behaviour as Debian Developers (DDs)
> do.
>
>
Le Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 01:13:53AM +0900, Norbert Preining a écrit :
>
> * The demotion to Debian Maintainer is - as far as I read the
> consitution [3], the delegation of DAM [4], and the DAM Wiki page
> about their rights and powers [5], not legit since besides expulsion
> there is
>But we, as a project, need to ensure that there is more transparency
>moving forward. And I think it would be wise to review the way that
>DAM and AH operate. We need to ensure they stick to protocol, and
>are held accountable for the use of their powers.
This!
-nik
Hello project,
It's very sad to read about what's going on.
I know that there's been at least another case, in which DAM and AH
have acted outside their mandate, threatening with project
expulsion, and choosing very selectively with whom they communicate.
I know, because I was being targeted.
Hi everyone,
(please Cc me, I am not subscribed to d-p)
first of all thanks to Daniel for bringing this up and standing up for
me, this is very much appreciated.
For those not aware of the issue, here is *my* view onto the events.
AH and DAM can answer and provide their own interpretation. I
On 24/12/18 10:13, Marcin Kulisz wrote:
> On 2018-12-23 20:58:08, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>
>> On 12/21/18 10:02 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>>> Norbert seems to have stepped back in response:
>>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-tex-maint/2018/12/msg00019.html
>> Getting your DD rights being removed
On 2018-12-23 20:58:08, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
>
> On 12/21/18 10:02 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Norbert seems to have stepped back in response:
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-tex-maint/2018/12/msg00019.html
>
> Getting your DD rights being removed from DAM is probably not what you
>
On 12/21/18 10:02 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Norbert seems to have stepped back in response:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-tex-maint/2018/12/msg00019.html
Getting your DD rights being removed from DAM is probably not what you
would call a step back in your free will. He was forced to do
Daniel Pocock wrote:
> Putting the evidence I've seen in a public list would be disrespectful
> and a breach of trust. Nonetheless, I confirm to the community that I
> have seen enough
Then you are being hypocritical by decrying the anti-harrassment team
for keeping reports confidential, and by
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
