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 18, 2006 at 02:44:15AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > 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 persons who have something against me today, it is the exact same ones > >where there back then, and who have not ceased to work against me since then. > > Christ. As I said to you in mail last month: grow up. Steve, only one question. I made a reasonable looking compromise proposal, which even Steve Langasek, when quoted, said was reasonable, so you don't need to take my word for it. So, why was there no reply on this proposal from either you or Anthony ? Why was this proposal not made to Frans, and his reply forwarded to me for further discussion, or at least incorporated in the mediation attempt ? I played the rule, when i saw that there was nbo reasonable discussion possible with Frans, i came to the DPL, which is the designed mediator for situations like this, and he delegated this issue to you. So, where was the mediation, and why are we still having this mess open and bleeding today ? > Two points: > > 1) Do you really believe that the people you've accused of "working > against you" have nothing better to do? I've seen you accuse > Frans, Steve, AJ, Colin, Joey and others. I'm assuming by now Indeed. Not many others though. And Colin only in the light of the RMs coming crashing on me for a minor mistake, and each three of them repeating the same broderline insulting reprimands on me. > you've probably accused me of similar. They're all busy people, Nope. I am gratefull for the attempt you made to mediate this issue, even if it failed. > working on Debian and (in most cases) day jobs besides. Do you > really think they've got nothing better to do than pick on you? > That's quite some paranoia you have. Well given that often when i made a comment he didn't like, Frans made an immediate and bashing reply, i doubt he has any better to do, as do the folk on irc who find it the sport of the month to bash me with insults and worse. > 2) Right now, *today*, there are lots more people with something > against you. Your incessant whining across multiple mailing lists, Indeed, and if you and the DPL had made a real effort to mediate this issue one month and a half ago, we would not be here. > going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on > and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and > on and on and on and on and on and on and on with no signs of ever > stopping is enough to have caused several people to publically > killfile you. Others have asked about the possibility of getting > you removed/moderated from Debian mailing lists *just* to make the > noise go away. At this point in time I'd support such a move > myself. Yeah, there is a very very simple way to get the noise away. If you and the DPL would have taken the mediation job seriously, we would not even have this discussion. > As I've asked you in the past, think about exactly what you're trying > to achieve and how you're going about it. Publically haranguing lots > of other DDs doesn't help any case you might be trying to advance - it Given that the supposed way to solve this, namely the DPL mediation, failed, and was not attempted seriously in the first place, what other route is open to me ? A GR ? Would that have helped in any way ? > makes you look like a small child throwing a tantrum. If you *ever* > want the d-i people to accept you again as a member of their team, you > *have* to change your approach. No, the DPL clearly said that changing my communication methods had nothing to do with the issue in his mediation, which you where part off. So, now, you realise the errors of Anthony's sentence ? > [ Please don't reply to this on the mailing lists and make this > worse. If you have anything constructive to say, I've set the > Reply-To: above. ] As said, i had a private conversation with you and Anthony during the mediation process, with the little result that we know. I understand now that what you called mediation was nothing but talking to me in private so i don't make a fuss, but that no real mediation attempt was ever tempted, or we would not be here. Naturally, a meditation where the people involved aim it only at silencing someone they decided before hand was guilty is not worth being called a mediation attempt. As said, given this situation, only full disclosure will help to get any solution on this, Sorry, but you had your chance, and see where we are now. Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
