On community (un-)friendliness [was: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums]

[tomas]

On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 06:38:04AM +0200, Borden wrote:
> > In fact, annoying volunteers tends to reduce their voluntarism...
> 
> That's fair. But people age [...]

Folks, I'm out of this discussion anyway, but please: change
your subject line.

Be considerate towards the original poster and don't burden
that monster thread with tons of unrelated stuff.

If you request friendliness, at least try to give some, too.

Cheers
 - t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Borden]

> In fact, annoying volunteers tends to reduce their voluntarism...

That's fair. But people age and, if they're any good at what they do, have less 
time to volunteer as they get busier and promote through their career.

So how do you encourage new volunteers to join and replace veterans? How do you 
 keep newcomers feeling welcomed and engaged?

Projects wonder why it's so hard finding new maintainers when existing ones 
leave. For example, the Qt maintainers are quitting, and I haven't seen a  
succession plan.

I think a lot of it has to do with the vocal minority who defend incivility and 
blame newcomers for conflicts. And that's fine if you want to run your 
community that way, but don't ask why  a project  collapsed when nobody's 
qualified or interested in maintaining it. I just don't see how that's 
sustainable. Neither do people who've studied this and trained me on governance.

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[riveravaldez]

On 9/30/21, Jonathan Dowland  wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 08:46:35PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
>>Do you really mean that in the open source world, there is - and should
>>be - no expectation that a contributor who supplies a patch to a
>>prominent public project that is rejected should receive at least some
>>sort of explanation for the decision to reject it? I respect your
>>opinion, but I would have assumed that basic courtesy and civility, and
>>the open source ethos in general, suggest otherwise.
>
> Of course it would be polite to offer a response and I think most
> maintainers in most circumstances would do so. But volunteer time
> is limited and one can't demand a volunteer spend their time on
> anything.

In fact, annoying volunteers tends to reduce their voluntarism...

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 08:46:35PM -0400, Celejar wrote:

Do you really mean that in the open source world, there is - and should
be - no expectation that a contributor who supplies a patch to a
prominent public project that is rejected should receive at least some
sort of explanation for the decision to reject it? I respect your
opinion, but I would have assumed that basic courtesy and civility, and
the open source ethos in general, suggest otherwise.


Of course it would be polite to offer a response and I think most
maintainers in most circumstances would do so. But volunteer time
is limited and one can't demand a volunteer spend their time on
anything.


--
Please do not CC me for listmail.

  Jonathan Dowland
✎j...@debian.org
   https://jmtd.net

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[tomas]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 03:50:35AM +0200, Borden wrote:
> >>
> >> You really should consider stopping to reply and leave things as they
> >> are.
> >
> >I agree, it's time to stop this thread, I am satisfied with things how they 
> >are.
> 
> And nobody's learnt anything [...]

Yes, I, at least, learnt something:

> [...] And, again, a quick search for "open source" and "toxic" will reveal no 
> shortage of commentary about how these attitudes fail the community.

This is an antipattern. Hand waving and summoning obscure authorities
("search", "commentary") to associate "open source" (whatever that
is) with "toxic" taught me: we not only live in different worlds,
but I should try to keep it that way. For my own sanity.

All the best in your journey

-- tomás


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Borden]

>>
>> You really should consider stopping to reply and leave things as they
>> are.
>
>I agree, it's time to stop this thread, I am satisfied with things how they 
>are.

And nobody's learnt anything. The overwhelming consensus is that the class 
system works and that anyone who thinks otherwise is psychologically unstable.

Since deloptes brought my mental health into the discussion, I'm not ashamed to 
reveal that I get treatment for conditions for which I need assistance, as 
anybody committed to self-betterment ought to do. My therapists have been 
unanimous that my personality and intelligence are fine, but that I should  
avoid toxic people. And, again, a quick search for "open source" and "toxic" 
will reveal no shortage of commentary about how these attitudes fail the 
community.

So the conclusion  is that nothing will change, so  nobody should be surprised 
when this incident repeats or escalates. "Those who don't learn from 
history...", "The definition of madness...", etc.

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Celejar]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 16:34:43 +0100
Jonathan Dowland  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 07:10:08AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:

...

> > or at least consider it 
> >and have the courtesy to tell me why they can't or won't accept the
> >patch.
> 
> I'm sorry, neither the Xen maintainers nor any other contributors, be
> they volunteers or otherwise, owe you *anything*.

Do you really mean that in the open source world, there is - and should
be - no expectation that a contributor who supplies a patch to a
prominent public project that is rejected should receive at least some
sort of explanation for the decision to reject it? I respect your
opinion, but I would have assumed that basic courtesy and civility, and
the open source ethos in general, suggest otherwise.

Celejar

Fwd: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/28/2021 11:34 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:

On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 07:10:08AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
As the original poster, I can say this hits the nail on the head. 
Most definitely, Andy Smith and others claim a right to call 
newcomers like me a laughingstock, damned, etc., on the basis of 
their supposed god-like status.

...

By overreaction, he clearly means I refused to worship him and his ilk
as the gods they think they are, 


I think this is an unreasonable characterisation of Andy Smith which I
invite you to retract. I've read all of his messages on this subject to
this list (at least) and I thought he'd taken great pains to make clear
that he was merely an interested bystander, no more important than
anyone else -- including you!


I agree to retract this. I am sure Andy Smith is a fine person, and I can
see he devotes much of his time heping others use Debian, and that is
a good thing that he does. My statement was an emotional overreaction
in response to Borden, who clearly is overstating problems in Debian.
I did too, and I am sorry.

Thanks,

Chuck

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/28/2021 10:23 AM, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:

Chuck Zmudzinski  wrote on 28/09/2021 at 13:10:08+0200:


On 9/27/2021 9:18 PM, Borden wrote:

I sympathise with your frustrations.

The open source "community" - especially Debian - is not known for
its civility. There have been numerous articles (and backlashes)
identifying the rampant misogyny, racism, arrogance, murder and
general rudeness amongst its members and leaders. If you're
expecting a well-governed organisation with a robust, even-handed
and consistent method for handling problems, your princess is in
another castle.

Unfortunately, the old economic principle "You get what you pay for"
applies. People who are good at what they do charge good rates and
are in too high demand to deal with us plebs for free. As in any
volunteer organisation, positions attract people with way too much
free time and whose opinions of themselves (including their legal
scholarship) exceeds their abilities. It's pretty tribal.

I'm speaking very broadly here and not in reference to anybody in particular, 
but I have  numerous incidents from the past 20 years in mind.

Many newcomers to open source are encouraged to read Eric Raymond's
"How to ask questions the smart way" which is a rambling manifesto
that establishes the caste system of project managers at the top and
newcomers at the bottom. Contributors are to be worshipped as gods,
and we must be grateful to them when they down from Nirvana to
educate us.

As the original poster, I can say this hits the nail on the head. Most
definitely, Andy Smith and others claim a right to call newcomers like
me a laughingstock, damned, etc., on the basis of their supposed
god-like status. The fact is, I solved my bug (#994899) and wanted to
help the Debian project out. And as thanks I get called a
laughingstock and that I would be "damning" myself further if I didn't
stop my alleged "overreaction." By overreaction, he clearly means I
refused to worship him and his ilk as the gods they think they are,
even claiming the power and right to damn newcomers at will. Yet they
are the ones unable to solve their bug (#991967). And they are the
gods to be worshiped? Ha ha! I wouldn't pay any of them a dime to try
to squash a software bug. I will just fix it myself. Debian is closing
in on a million bugs. That's a lot, it takes about 97 new bugs per day
over the 28-year life-span of the project to get to a number that
high. And that is only the ones that are reported. I have seen many
bugs in free software that I did not bother to report, and I am sure
many others have as well.

I am inclined to say that if the truth be told, the only bugs that
matter are the ones that Google, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, etc. want to
get solved. I see many bugs are marked as patch available, yet the
patch is never applied. My bug is marked as patch available. But I am
not Google or Amazon. So I doubt my patch for my bug will ever make it
into the distribution. Apparently I have committed the deadly sin of
questioning the gods. If Debian wants to prove me wrong, then Debian
should accept my patch into the distribution, or at least consider it
and have the courtesy to tell me why they can't or won't accept the
patch. If they do work with me to get a fix into the Debian software
for my bug, then I will retract my statement that I believe only the
bugs that are important to Debian are the ones giant multinational
corporations want a fix for. Or, think of it this way. Maybe the big
software companies plant bugs on purpose in free software (or worse,
malware, ransomware, etc.) so most people have no choice but to pay
them for their commercial products and security solutions, and it is
not good for their bottom line if too many people can get a secure,
bug-free product for free. Again, if Debian accepts my patch for my
bug, then I would stand corrected.

Hi Chuck,

You really should consider stopping to reply and leave things as they
are.

Regards,

--
PEB


I agree, it's time to stop this thread, I am satisfied with things how they
are.

All the best,

Chuck

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[deloptes]

Borden wrote:

> Empathy is the ability to step outside your own experience to see the
> world from someone else's perspective. It's an evolved human attribute
> that separates us from other animals, I've read.

Well, still your perception is quite different than someone else. For me
debian user is quite OK, even when it crosses borders (me including).
I do not see why you should bring up empathy here. My observation is that
more and more are infant and do not understand irony, sarcasm and other
human qualities that separate us even more from other animals.
Take it with humor and go on. If you are affected by what is written/said
here ... seek a help from psyhologist. AFAIK the forum is not a therapy
place.
However on the other side people should stop being rude if someone asks for
this.


-- 
FCD6 3719 0FFB F1BF 38EA 4727 5348 5F1F DCFE BCB0

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 07:10:08AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
As the original poster, I can say this hits the nail on the head. Most 
definitely, Andy Smith and others claim a right to call newcomers like 
me a laughingstock, damned, etc., on the basis of their supposed 
god-like status.

...

By overreaction, he clearly means I refused to worship him and his ilk
as the gods they think they are, 


I think this is an unreasonable characterisation of Andy Smith which I
invite you to retract. I've read all of his messages on this subject to
this list (at least) and I thought he'd taken great pains to make clear
that he was merely an interested bystander, no more important than
anyone else -- including you!


My bug is marked as patch available. But I am not Google or Amazon. So
I doubt my patch for my bug will ever make it into the distribution.


There is ample evidence that patches and contributions coming from
people who are not part of MegaCorps are regularly and routinely
welcomed. The argument you are trying to put forward here is a strange
straw man.


Apparently I have committed the deadly sin of questioning the gods. If
Debian wants to prove me wrong, then Debian should accept my patch into
the distribution


The psychology in play here (If Debian doesn't accept my patch...) is
laughably transparent.

I don't speak for the Xen maintainers. As a general principle, Debian
maintainers weigh contributions with a number of factors. One of those
factors is to what extent the Contributor is someone who the maintainer
can have a constructive working relationship with. It's a strength of
the project, IMHO, that technical excellence doesn't overrule the other
factors. So, even if your patch is technically excellent (and I have not
studied it to make that assertion), you should bear in mind your other
interactions with the project -- including your unreasonable and
ongoing mischaracterisation of Andy Smith and others -- is highly
relevant.

or at least consider it 
and have the courtesy to tell me why they can't or won't accept the

patch.


I'm sorry, neither the Xen maintainers nor any other contributors, be
they volunteers or otherwise, owe you *anything*.


--
Please do not CC me for listmail.

  Jonathan Dowland
✎j...@debian.org
   https://jmtd.net

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Borden]

> We must live in different worlds, then.

Unless you're writing from  the multiverse (in which case there are many people 
who _really_ want to meet you), we live in very much the same world. Empathy is 
the ability to step outside your own experience to see the world from someone 
else's perspective. It's an evolved human attribute that separates us from 
other animals, I've read.

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Chuck Zmudzinski  wrote on 28/09/2021 at 13:10:08+0200:

> On 9/27/2021 9:18 PM, Borden wrote:
>> I sympathise with your frustrations.
>>
>> The open source "community" - especially Debian - is not known for
>> its civility. There have been numerous articles (and backlashes)
>> identifying the rampant misogyny, racism, arrogance, murder and
>> general rudeness amongst its members and leaders. If you're
>> expecting a well-governed organisation with a robust, even-handed
>> and consistent method for handling problems, your princess is in
>> another castle.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the old economic principle "You get what you pay for"
>> applies. People who are good at what they do charge good rates and
>> are in too high demand to deal with us plebs for free. As in any
>> volunteer organisation, positions attract people with way too much
>> free time and whose opinions of themselves (including their legal
>> scholarship) exceeds their abilities. It's pretty tribal.
>>
>> I'm speaking very broadly here and not in reference to anybody in 
>> particular, but I have  numerous incidents from the past 20 years in mind.
>>
>> Many newcomers to open source are encouraged to read Eric Raymond's
>> "How to ask questions the smart way" which is a rambling manifesto
>> that establishes the caste system of project managers at the top and
>> newcomers at the bottom. Contributors are to be worshipped as gods,
>> and we must be grateful to them when they down from Nirvana to
>> educate us.
>
> As the original poster, I can say this hits the nail on the head. Most
> definitely, Andy Smith and others claim a right to call newcomers like 
> me a laughingstock, damned, etc., on the basis of their supposed
> god-like status. The fact is, I solved my bug (#994899) and wanted to 
> help the Debian project out. And as thanks I get called a
> laughingstock and that I would be "damning" myself further if I didn't
> stop my alleged "overreaction." By overreaction, he clearly means I
> refused to worship him and his ilk as the gods they think they are,
> even claiming the power and right to damn newcomers at will. Yet they
> are the ones unable to solve their bug (#991967). And they are the
> gods to be worshiped? Ha ha! I wouldn't pay any of them a dime to try
> to squash a software bug. I will just fix it myself. Debian is closing
> in on a million bugs. That's a lot, it takes about 97 new bugs per day
> over the 28-year life-span of the project to get to a number that
> high. And that is only the ones that are reported. I have seen many
> bugs in free software that I did not bother to report, and I am sure
> many others have as well.
>
> I am inclined to say that if the truth be told, the only bugs that
> matter are the ones that Google, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, etc. want to 
> get solved. I see many bugs are marked as patch available, yet the
> patch is never applied. My bug is marked as patch available. But I am
> not Google or Amazon. So I doubt my patch for my bug will ever make it
> into the distribution. Apparently I have committed the deadly sin of 
> questioning the gods. If Debian wants to prove me wrong, then Debian
> should accept my patch into the distribution, or at least consider it 
> and have the courtesy to tell me why they can't or won't accept the
> patch. If they do work with me to get a fix into the Debian software
> for my bug, then I will retract my statement that I believe only the
> bugs that are important to Debian are the ones giant multinational 
> corporations want a fix for. Or, think of it this way. Maybe the big
> software companies plant bugs on purpose in free software (or worse, 
> malware, ransomware, etc.) so most people have no choice but to pay
> them for their commercial products and security solutions, and it is
> not good for their bottom line if too many people can get a secure,
> bug-free product for free. Again, if Debian accepts my patch for my
> bug, then I would stand corrected.

Hi Chuck,

You really should consider stopping to reply and leave things as they
are.

Regards,

--
PEB


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/27/2021 9:18 PM, Borden wrote:

I sympathise with your frustrations.

The open source "community" - especially Debian - is not known for its 
civility. There have been numerous articles (and backlashes) identifying the rampant 
misogyny, racism, arrogance, murder and general rudeness amongst its members and leaders. 
If you're expecting a well-governed organisation with a robust, even-handed and 
consistent method for handling problems, your princess is in another castle.

Unfortunately, the old economic principle "You get what you pay for" applies. 
People who are good at what they do  charge good rates and are in too high demand to deal 
with us plebs for free. As in any volunteer organisation, positions attract people  with 
way too much free time and whose opinions of themselves (including their legal 
scholarship) exceeds their abilities. It's pretty tribal.

I'm speaking very broadly here and not in reference to anybody in particular, 
but I have  numerous incidents from the past 20 years in mind.

Many newcomers to open source are encouraged to read Eric Raymond's "How to ask 
questions the smart way" which is a rambling manifesto that establishes the caste 
system of project managers at the top and newcomers at the bottom. Contributors are to be 
worshipped as gods, and we must be grateful to them when they down from Nirvana to 
educate us.


As the original poster, I can say this hits the nail on the head. Most 
definitely, Andy Smith and others claim a right to call newcomers like 
me a laughingstock, damned, etc., on the basis of their supposed 
god-like status. The fact is, I solved my bug (#994899) and wanted to 
help the Debian project out. And as thanks I get called a laughingstock 
and that I would be "damning" myself further if I didn't stop my alleged 
"overreaction." By overreaction, he clearly means I refused to worship 
him and his ilk as the gods they think they are, even claiming the power 
and right to damn newcomers at will. Yet they are the ones unable to 
solve their bug (#991967). And they are the gods to be worshiped? Ha ha! 
I wouldn't pay any of them a dime to try to squash a software bug. I 
will just fix it myself. Debian is closing in on a million bugs. That's 
a lot, it takes about 97 new bugs per day over the 28-year life-span of 
the project to get to a number that high. And that is only the ones that 
are reported. I have seen many bugs in free software that I did not 
bother to report, and I am sure many others have as well.


I am inclined to say that if the truth be told, the only bugs that 
matter are the ones that Google, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, etc. want to 
get solved. I see many bugs are marked as patch available, yet the patch 
is never applied. My bug is marked as patch available. But I am not 
Google or Amazon. So I doubt my patch for my bug will ever make it into 
the distribution. Apparently I have committed the deadly sin of 
questioning the gods. If Debian wants to prove me wrong, then Debian 
should accept my patch into the distribution, or at least consider it 
and have the courtesy to tell me why they can't or won't accept the 
patch. If they do work with me to get a fix into the Debian software for 
my bug, then I will retract my statement that I believe only the bugs 
that are important to Debian are the ones giant multinational 
corporations want a fix for. Or, think of it this way. Maybe the big 
software companies plant bugs on purpose in free software (or worse, 
malware, ransomware, etc.) so most people have no choice but to pay them 
for their commercial products and security solutions, and it is not good 
for their bottom line if too many people can get a secure, bug-free 
product for free. Again, if Debian accepts my patch for my bug, then I 
would stand corrected.


Chuck

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[tomas]

On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 03:18:56AM +0200, Borden wrote:
> I sympathise with your frustrations.
> 
> The open source "community" - especially Debian - is not known for its
> civility [...]

We must live in different worlds, then.

Things go wrong from time to time, but we keep trying. Intervening in
concrete cases is much more helpful than such roundabout statements,
which are discouraging to all those genuinely trying (and there are
quite a few in this list, thank to you all!).

Cheers
 - t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Borden]

I sympathise with your frustrations.

The open source "community" - especially Debian - is not known for its 
civility. There have been numerous articles (and backlashes) identifying the 
rampant misogyny, racism, arrogance, murder and general rudeness amongst its 
members and leaders. If you're expecting a well-governed organisation with a 
robust, even-handed and consistent method for handling problems, your princess 
is in another castle.

Unfortunately, the old economic principle "You get what you pay for" applies. 
People who are good at what they do  charge good rates and are in too high 
demand to deal with us plebs for free. As in any volunteer organisation, 
positions attract people  with way too much free time and whose opinions of 
themselves (including their legal scholarship) exceeds their abilities. It's 
pretty tribal.

I'm speaking very broadly here and not in reference to anybody in particular, 
but I have  numerous incidents from the past 20 years in mind.

Many newcomers to open source are encouraged to read Eric Raymond's "How to ask 
questions the smart way" which is a rambling manifesto that establishes the 
caste system of project managers at the top and newcomers at the bottom. 
Contributors are to be worshipped as gods, and we must be grateful to them when 
they down from Nirvana to educate us.

Perhaps some day, if it hasn't been done already, I'll work on "How to answer 
questions the smart way" since communication is a three-step process and, as 
you can tell from many of the responses to your concerns, many contributors 
don't feel they owe anything to the users. Again. You get what you pay for.

My point is that all three points in the process - asker, responder and 
communication medium - have a role to play in building and nurturing a 
community. But too much emphasis in the open source world overly faults the 
newcomers and gives veterans too much power.

As others have suggested, I'd recommend wrapping yourself in some anonymity if 
you're worried about slander and/or reprisal. That's why I opened a Tutanota 
account.

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Linux-Fan]

rhkra...@gmail.com writes:


On Sunday, September 26, 2021 08:45:13 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 07:00:06AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Well, to be fair to Google, the first two or three hits did show FAOD,
> > but without explaining what it meant -- those sites that you have to
> > actually go to to find the meaning.  I skipped over those to find a hit
> > that actually included the meaning, and the first (and next) one(s) I
> > found were for FOAD, and I didn't notice the difference.
>
> Fascinating.  My first page results from Google were all of this form:
>
>   What are long-chain fatty acid oxidation disorders (LC-FAOD)?
>   https://www.faodinfocus.com › learn-about-lc-faod
>   LC-FAOD are rare, genetic metabolic disorders that prevent the body from
> breaking down long-chain fatty acids into energy during metabolism.
>
> This is obviously wrong in this context.
>
> The entire first page consisted solely of results like this, so I didn't
> even bother going to page 2.

Hmm, I don't remember the eact google query I tried, I might have done
something like [define: FAOD slang] or something similar (maybe "acronym",  
but

maybe more likely "slang").


Trying to find out what the fuss was about, my first query was

FAOD urban dictionary

which yielded

1. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Faod (not helpful)
2. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=foad

Like rhkramer, I did not notice that the letters were intermingled.

When entering

FAOD

I get results similar to Greg's. When entering

FAOD meaning

(as suggested by Google for related searches), I get this among the top  
results:


https://www.acronymfinder.com/Slang/FAOD.html

That, finally, explains it.

Most of the time, I try to stick to acronyms that are found in "The Jargon  
File" (package `jargon`) because these seem to have a pretty agreed-upon  
meaning :)


HTH and YMMV
Linux-Fan

öö


pgpjxsIFEVmwU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Michael Stone]

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 07:51:18PM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

Ahh, looking harder, apparently means:  For Avoidance Of Doubt (chiefly
British)


It certainly clarified things. :-D

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Peter Ehlert]

On 9/25/21 5:10 PM, The Wanderer wrote:

On 2021-09-25 at 20:00, Greg Wooledge wrote:


On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 07:51:18PM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:


On Saturday, September 25, 2021 07:43:04 PM rhkra...@gmail.com
wrote:

I had to look up the meaning of FAOD.  Are you kidding me?  What
did I do or say to get a response like that?

I may have misunderstood which message you were pointing to -- I
was interested in the message that Chuck wrote that prompted all
the criticism.

So a misunderstanding about which message we each were talking
about, but FAOD???

And if FAOD means what I found on the internet, that must violate
the Debian CoC.

Oops, I may need to apologize -- I googled for FAOD, but in googles
own "it knows better" manner, it showed me definitios of FOAD :-(

I've been assuming it was a typo for FOAD, but I don't know what you
said to provoke that reaction.

If it really was FAOD then I have no idea what it stands for.


I too had no clue... and was shocked at the FOAD hits I got

today Google is actually different:
10 pages searching for "FAOD"  resulted in nothing but fatty acid links.
then the suggested search: "FAOD meaning" got me to this:

Acronym    Definition
FAOD    Forever and One Day
FAOD    Free App of the Day
FAOD    Fatty Acid Oxidation Disorder
FAOD    Fructosyl-Amino Acid Oxidase (biochemistry)
FAOD    Furry Army of Doom (online group)
FAOD    For Avoidance Of Doubt (chiefly British)


rhkramer correctly identified it in the most recent reply: "For
Avoidance of Doubt".

that is comforting
LOL (laughing out loud)

It hadn't occurred to me that it wouldn't be
readily recognizable in these circles, or that Google wouldn't find it
easily. (I may actually be more surprised by the latter than by the former.)

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[The Wanderer]

On 2021-09-26 at 08:45, Greg Wooledge wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 07:00:06AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Well, to be fair to Google, the first two or three hits did show FAOD, but 
>> without explaining what it meant -- those sites that you have to actually go 
>> to to find the meaning.  I skipped over those to find a hit that actually 
>> included the meaning, and the first (and next) one(s) I found were for FOAD, 
>> and I didn't notice the difference.  
> 
> Fascinating.  My first page results from Google were all of this form:
> 
>   What are long-chain fatty acid oxidation disorders (LC-FAOD)?
>   https://www.faodinfocus.com › learn-about-lc-faod
>   LC-FAOD are rare, genetic metabolic disorders that prevent the body from 
> breaking down long-chain fatty acids into energy during metabolism.
> 
> This is obviously wrong in this context.
> 
> The entire first page consisted solely of results like this, so I didn't
> even bother going to page 2.

When I tested (yesterday evening), I got the same result as you report.

I had never heard of this interpretation of the initialism before, and
am moderately surprised to see that Google considers it to be the
top-priority one.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[rhkramer]

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 08:45:13 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 07:00:06AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Well, to be fair to Google, the first two or three hits did show FAOD,
> > but without explaining what it meant -- those sites that you have to
> > actually go to to find the meaning.  I skipped over those to find a hit
> > that actually included the meaning, and the first (and next) one(s) I
> > found were for FOAD, and I didn't notice the difference.
> 
> Fascinating.  My first page results from Google were all of this form:
> 
>   What are long-chain fatty acid oxidation disorders (LC-FAOD)?
>   https://www.faodinfocus.com › learn-about-lc-faod
>   LC-FAOD are rare, genetic metabolic disorders that prevent the body from
> breaking down long-chain fatty acids into energy during metabolism.
> 
> This is obviously wrong in this context.
> 
> The entire first page consisted solely of results like this, so I didn't
> even bother going to page 2.

Hmm, I don't remember the eact google query I tried, I might have done 
something like [define: FAOD slang] or something similar (maybe "acronym", but 
maybe more likely "slang").

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Greg Wooledge]

On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 07:00:06AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, to be fair to Google, the first two or three hits did show FAOD, but 
> without explaining what it meant -- those sites that you have to actually go 
> to to find the meaning.  I skipped over those to find a hit that actually 
> included the meaning, and the first (and next) one(s) I found were for FOAD, 
> and I didn't notice the difference.  

Fascinating.  My first page results from Google were all of this form:

  What are long-chain fatty acid oxidation disorders (LC-FAOD)?
  https://www.faodinfocus.com › learn-about-lc-faod
  LC-FAOD are rare, genetic metabolic disorders that prevent the body from 
breaking down long-chain fatty acids into energy during metabolism.

This is obviously wrong in this context.

The entire first page consisted solely of results like this, so I didn't
even bother going to page 2.

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/26/2021 7:28 AM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:

On 9/26/2021 7:18 AM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 12:58:44 PM Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:

I am truly sorry, are there second chances in the Debian Community?

I hope and trust so -- I've had to make use of them more than once ;-)


... That is why defamation is not the only
issue to discuss here. The other is privacy and whether or
not Debian volunteers can discuss matters privately or does
every criticism we have about another person need to
be expressed in the public forums?
Things certainly can be discussed privately, but (1) not everyone 
immediately
thinks of that under all circumstances.  (And may either (2) consider 
the
criticism (if it is that) to be so mild it doesn't require private 
discussion,
or (3) is useful for the entire list, and thus useful to be public 
rather than

private.  (In that situation (3) (or (2)), it would be nice if it were
discussed in private first as an extra element of courtesy, but see (1).

Have a good day!





May I add (4) not everyone immediately thinks (or agrees) that it is 
not good
to just include a link without also posting the relevant text from 
that link.

I think posting the link with a summary of other relevant information
is sufficient. I respect that opinion of the poster of message #10 of 
my bug,
but I don't think I must agree with it. Now I know that's what he 
expects,

and I will try to remember that in future interactions with him.

All the best,

Chuck



Also, other people might be offended if I posted the link and did what
the author of #10 wanted me to do, also include the relevant text
of the link. What effect does that have? Suppose someone reads the link
and then comes back to my message and finds repeated what I
already said in the link. He/she becomes annoyed that I
wasted her/his time. When I was formulating my initial bug report,
how was I supposed to know how the author of message #10
wanted me to create my bug report?

Cheers,

Chuck

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/26/2021 7:18 AM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 12:58:44 PM Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:

I am truly sorry, are there second chances in the Debian Community?

I hope and trust so -- I've had to make use of them more than once ;-)


... That is why defamation is not the only
issue to discuss here. The other is privacy and whether or
not Debian volunteers can discuss matters privately or does
every criticism we have about another person need to
be expressed in the public forums?

Things certainly can be discussed privately, but (1) not everyone immediately
thinks of that under all circumstances.  (And may either (2) consider the
criticism (if it is that) to be so mild it doesn't require private discussion,
or (3) is useful for the entire list, and thus useful to be public rather than
private.  (In that situation (3) (or (2)), it would be nice if it were
discussed in private first as an extra element of courtesy, but see (1).

Have a good day!





May I add (4) not everyone immediately thinks (or agrees) that it is not 
good
to just include a link without also posting the relevant text from that 
link.

I think posting the link with a summary of other relevant information
is sufficient. I respect that opinion of the poster of message #10 of my 
bug,

but I don't think I must agree with it. Now I know that's what he expects,
and I will try to remember that in future interactions with him.

All the best,

Chuck

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[rhkramer]

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 12:58:44 PM Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> I am truly sorry, are there second chances in the Debian Community?

I hope and trust so -- I've had to make use of them more than once ;-)

> ... That is why defamation is not the only
> issue to discuss here. The other is privacy and whether or
> not Debian volunteers can discuss matters privately or does
> every criticism we have about another person need to
> be expressed in the public forums?

Things certainly can be discussed privately, but (1) not everyone immediately 
thinks of that under all circumstances.  (And may either (2) consider the 
criticism (if it is that) to be so mild it doesn't require private discussion, 
or (3) is useful for the entire list, and thus useful to be public rather than 
private.  (In that situation (3) (or (2)), it would be nice if it were 
discussed in private first as an extra element of courtesy, but see (1).

Have a good day!

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[rhkramer]

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 08:10:31 PM The Wanderer wrote:
> rhkramer correctly identified it in the most recent reply: "For
> Avoidance of Doubt". It hadn't occurred to me that it wouldn't be
> readily recognizable in these circles, or that Google wouldn't find it
> easily. (I may actually be more surprised by the latter than by the
> former.)

Well, to be fair to Google, the first two or three hits did show FAOD, but 
without explaining what it meant -- those sites that you have to actually go 
to to find the meaning.  I skipped over those to find a hit that actually 
included the meaning, and the first (and next) one(s) I found were for FOAD, 
and I didn't notice the difference.  

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[The Wanderer]

On 2021-09-25 at 20:00, Greg Wooledge wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 07:51:18PM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 07:43:04 PM rhkra...@gmail.com
>> wrote:

>>> I had to look up the meaning of FAOD.  Are you kidding me?  What
>>> did I do or say to get a response like that?
>>> 
>>> I may have misunderstood which message you were pointing to -- I
>>> was interested in the message that Chuck wrote that prompted all
>>> the criticism.
>>> 
>>> So a misunderstanding about which message we each were talking
>>> about, but FAOD???
>>> 
>>> And if FAOD means what I found on the internet, that must violate
>>> the Debian CoC.
>> 
>> Oops, I may need to apologize -- I googled for FAOD, but in googles
>> own "it knows better" manner, it showed me definitios of FOAD :-(
> 
> I've been assuming it was a typo for FOAD, but I don't know what you 
> said to provoke that reaction.
> 
> If it really was FAOD then I have no idea what it stands for.

rhkramer correctly identified it in the most recent reply: "For
Avoidance of Doubt". It hadn't occurred to me that it wouldn't be
readily recognizable in these circles, or that Google wouldn't find it
easily. (I may actually be more surprised by the latter than by the former.)

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Greg Wooledge]

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 07:51:18PM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 07:43:04 PM rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 25, 2021 06:32:16 PM The Wanderer wrote:
> > > FAOD,
> > 
> > I had to look up the meaning of FAOD.  Are you kidding me?  What did I do
> > or say to get a response like that?
> > 
> > I may have misunderstood which message you were pointing to -- I was
> > interested in the message that Chuck wrote that prompted all the criticism.
> > 
> > So a misunderstanding about which message we each were talking about, but
> > FAOD???
> > 
> > And if FAOD means what I found on the internet, that must violate the
> > Debian CoC.
> 
> Oops, I may need to apologize -- I googled for FAOD, but in googles own "it 
> knows better" manner, it showed me definitios of FOAD :-(

I've been assuming it was a typo for FOAD, but I don't know what you
said to provoke that reaction.

If it really was FAOD then I have no idea what it stands for.

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[The Wanderer]

On 2021-09-25 at 19:51, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 07:43:04 PM rhkra...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> 
>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 06:32:16 PM The Wanderer wrote:
>>> FAOD,
>> 
>> I had to look up the meaning of FAOD.  Are you kidding me?  What
>> did I do or say to get a response like that?
>> 
>> I may have misunderstood which message you were pointing to -- I
>> was interested in the message that Chuck wrote that prompted all
>> the criticism.
>> 
>> So a misunderstanding about which message we each were talking
>> about, but FAOD???
>> 
>> And if FAOD means what I found on the internet, that must violate
>> the Debian CoC.
> 
> Oops, I may need to apologize -- I googled for FAOD, but in googles
> own "it knows better" manner, it showed me definitios of FOAD :-(
> 
> Still don't know what FAOD means.
> 
> Ahh, looking harder, apparently means:For Avoidance Of Doubt
> (chiefly British)
> 
> Have a good day, and sorry for a 2nd misunderstanding.

No worries. I was a bit confused by your first response, but not in the
slightest bit offended.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[rhkramer]

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 07:43:04 PM rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 06:32:16 PM The Wanderer wrote:
> > FAOD,
> 
> I had to look up the meaning of FAOD.  Are you kidding me?  What did I do
> or say to get a response like that?
> 
> I may have misunderstood which message you were pointing to -- I was
> interested in the message that Chuck wrote that prompted all the criticism.
> 
> So a misunderstanding about which message we each were talking about, but
> FAOD???
> 
> And if FAOD means what I found on the internet, that must violate the
> Debian CoC.

Oops, I may need to apologize -- I googled for FAOD, but in googles own "it 
knows better" manner, it showed me definitios of FOAD :-(

Still don't know what FAOD means.

Ahh, looking harder, apparently means:  For Avoidance Of Doubt (chiefly 
British)

Have a good day, and sorry for a 2nd misunderstanding.



> > I understood the question I was responding to as asking which
> > message it was that contained the comments which Chuck was
> > characterizing as having "accused [him] in public of wrongdoing" -
> > which, naturally, would not have been written by Chuck.

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[rhkramer]

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 06:32:16 PM The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2021-09-25 at 09:06, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 24, 2021 05:31:47 PM The Wanderer wrote:
> >> Based on what I've found in digging earlier, as well as the name
> >> mentioned by Andy Smith in his reply, I think it's probably
> >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994899 -
> >> specifically. the first reply (comment 10).
> > 
> > Not replying specifically to The Wanderer, but just to this post
> > which mentions that the message at issue is #10, and noting that
> > message was not written by Chuck and instead written by someone from
> > the Debian side at least partially "critiquiing" Chuck's message #5.
> 
> FAOD,

I had to look up the meaning of FAOD.  Are you kidding me?  What did I do or 
say to get a response like that?

I may have misunderstood which message you were pointing to -- I was 
interested in the message that Chuck wrote that prompted all the criticism.

So a misunderstanding about which message we each were talking about, but 
FAOD???

And if FAOD means what I found on the internet, that must violate the Debian 
CoC.


> I understood the question I was responding to as asking which
> message it was that contained the comments which Chuck was
> characterizing as having "accused [him] in public of wrongdoing" -
> which, naturally, would not have been written by Chuck.

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[The Wanderer]

On 2021-09-25 at 09:06, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, September 24, 2021 05:31:47 PM The Wanderer wrote:
> 
>> Based on what I've found in digging earlier, as well as the name
>> mentioned by Andy Smith in his reply, I think it's probably
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994899 -
>> specifically. the first reply (comment 10).
> 
> Not replying specifically to The Wanderer, but just to this post
> which mentions that the message at issue is #10, and noting that
> message was not written by Chuck and instead written by someone from
> the Debian side at least partially "critiquiing" Chuck's message #5.

FAOD, I understood the question I was responding to as asking which
message it was that contained the comments which Chuck was
characterizing as having "accused [him] in public of wrongdoing" -
which, naturally, would not have been written by Chuck.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Jeremy Hendricks]

Chuck,

I’ve been following this email thread. I’m a nobody here but: you can’t
change the past but you control the future. People make mistakes in how
things are handled. But you can avoid them in the future.

I say this as an extrovert in a senior IT position and I've been known to
be “animated” in how I handle things sometimes.

Have a good weekend.

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:59 PM Chuck Zmudzinski 
wrote:

> On 9/25/2021 10:02 AM, Andy Smith wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 09:06:34AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 24, 2021 05:31:47 PM The Wanderer wrote:
> >>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994899 -
> specifically.
> >>> the first reply (comment 10).
> > […]
> >
> >> I've read over message #5, and without being a Debian developer or a
> user of
> >> Xen, aside from being a little longer / wordier than probably
> necessary, I
> >> don't see anything so objectionable about it.
> > [ I am not a member of the Debian Xen team and haven't contributed
> > anything to this particular bug, but I have followed it all as I
> > have an interest in the team's work. ]
> >
> > It's not outrageously objectionable, it's just not a very good bug
> > report with some *slightly* objectionable elements and background.
> >
> > This whole thing is pretty mundane and has been blown out of all
> > proportion by Chuck failing to handle reasonable advice given by
> > someone trying to help in good faith.
>
> I don't doubt at all that the advice in message #10 was given
> in good faith. I thought the author of #10's decision to rudely
> refuse to collaborate with me forever by saying "Bye" in a later
> message was also an overreaction to anything wrong I might
> have done.
> > Also what would have remained
> > with a very niche audience (people interested in Debian's Xen
> > packages) has now been shown to a much wider audience as a
> > consequence of Chuck bringing this to the attention of debian-user.
> >
> > To explain a bit more of the background, you'll see that Chuck
> > referred to another bug in that bug log and a lot of other
> > discussion took place there. Some of the things that are wrong with
> > Chuck's bug are that Chuck criticised the Debian Xen team for
> > including particular patches, and made some other factually
> > incorrect statements,
>
> For example?
> > and wrote in a style as if as if the situation
> > were fully known about by the Debian Xen team while valiant users
> > like Chuck are crushed underfoot.
>
> I admit the Debian Xen Team may not have been aware
> of the situation, and besides, I was more concerned that
> the Debian Release Team did not notice that patches from
> an unstable branch of the Xen upstream source made it
> into the Debian stable release. There is what I would call
> a "Debian patch" exploit attack surface exposed here to the
> authors of malware. THAT is a serious issue. The Xen Team's
> patches in question are perfectly acceptable in unstable and
> maybe in testing, but IMO, not in stable.
> >
> > In reality, the Debian Xen team didn't have good visibility of the
> > issue and it's not yet been proven where exactly the bug lies. Even
> > if it was shown to be in a patch that the team HAD taken on
> > questionable basis, so what, we are all volunteers here, there is no
> > need to berate people for their good faith efforts,
>
> I think its an overstatement to say I "berated" anyone in the
> bug report. You, however, judge me as "damned" and as a
> "laughingstock" in your first reply to my original post. That also
> is an overstatement of anything wrong I might have done,
> don't you think?
> > we should expect
> > bug reports to just focus on finding and fixing the bug not as
> > someone's platform to deal out a blame narrative.
>
> Agreed.
> >
> > Basically it's not a big deal and could have easily been turned
> > around; I felt #10 was a fairly gentle request to focus on the facts
> > and make progress but to say the criticism was not received well
> > would be an understatement!
>
> I am truly sorry, are there second chances in the Debian Community?
> >
> > For example, one of the "strongest" statements in #10 is
> >
> >  "It's good that you filed this bug against the Debian Xen
> >  package […] way you went about it ... not so good."
> >
> > Chuck's response to that seems to have been to go about complaining
> > in multiple unrelated locations of how he has been accused of being
> > "not good". Note that he's morphed a statement of "your bug report
> > was not done in a good way" into "someone in the Debian community
> > told me I was not a good person; remove their slander or risk being
> > sued". A dramatic misrepresentation of what actually happened. The
> > rest of it is full of things like that.
>
> Are you trying to say now I am not a good person? Seems so to me.
> >
> > It could be partially understandable if #10 had simply said, "your
> > bug report sucks," which believe me, I have seen and 

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/25/2021 10:02 AM, Andy Smith wrote:

Hello,

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 09:06:34AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 24, 2021 05:31:47 PM The Wanderer wrote:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994899 - specifically.
the first reply (comment 10).

[…]


I've read over message #5, and without being a Debian developer or a user of
Xen, aside from being a little longer / wordier than probably necessary, I
don't see anything so objectionable about it.

[ I am not a member of the Debian Xen team and haven't contributed
anything to this particular bug, but I have followed it all as I
have an interest in the team's work. ]

It's not outrageously objectionable, it's just not a very good bug
report with some *slightly* objectionable elements and background.

This whole thing is pretty mundane and has been blown out of all
proportion by Chuck failing to handle reasonable advice given by
someone trying to help in good faith.


I don't doubt at all that the advice in message #10 was given
in good faith. I thought the author of #10's decision to rudely
refuse to collaborate with me forever by saying "Bye" in a later
message was also an overreaction to anything wrong I might
have done.

Also what would have remained
with a very niche audience (people interested in Debian's Xen
packages) has now been shown to a much wider audience as a
consequence of Chuck bringing this to the attention of debian-user.

To explain a bit more of the background, you'll see that Chuck
referred to another bug in that bug log and a lot of other
discussion took place there. Some of the things that are wrong with
Chuck's bug are that Chuck criticised the Debian Xen team for
including particular patches, and made some other factually
incorrect statements,


For example?

and wrote in a style as if as if the situation
were fully known about by the Debian Xen team while valiant users
like Chuck are crushed underfoot.


I admit the Debian Xen Team may not have been aware
of the situation, and besides, I was more concerned that
the Debian Release Team did not notice that patches from
an unstable branch of the Xen upstream source made it
into the Debian stable release. There is what I would call
a "Debian patch" exploit attack surface exposed here to the
authors of malware. THAT is a serious issue. The Xen Team's
patches in question are perfectly acceptable in unstable and
maybe in testing, but IMO, not in stable.


In reality, the Debian Xen team didn't have good visibility of the
issue and it's not yet been proven where exactly the bug lies. Even
if it was shown to be in a patch that the team HAD taken on
questionable basis, so what, we are all volunteers here, there is no
need to berate people for their good faith efforts,


I think its an overstatement to say I "berated" anyone in the
bug report. You, however, judge me as "damned" and as a
"laughingstock" in your first reply to my original post. That also
is an overstatement of anything wrong I might have done,
don't you think?

we should expect
bug reports to just focus on finding and fixing the bug not as
someone's platform to deal out a blame narrative.


Agreed.


Basically it's not a big deal and could have easily been turned
around; I felt #10 was a fairly gentle request to focus on the facts
and make progress but to say the criticism was not received well
would be an understatement!


I am truly sorry, are there second chances in the Debian Community?


For example, one of the "strongest" statements in #10 is

 "It's good that you filed this bug against the Debian Xen
 package […] way you went about it ... not so good."

Chuck's response to that seems to have been to go about complaining
in multiple unrelated locations of how he has been accused of being
"not good". Note that he's morphed a statement of "your bug report
was not done in a good way" into "someone in the Debian community
told me I was not a good person; remove their slander or risk being
sued". A dramatic misrepresentation of what actually happened. The
rest of it is full of things like that.


Are you trying to say now I am not a good person? Seems so to me.


It could be partially understandable if #10 had simply said, "your
bug report sucks," which believe me, I have seen and continue to see
even from long standing Debian Developers. But Diederik did also
take the time to give useful advice about HOW to move the situation
forward, in fact that was the majority of the response.


I really appreciate Diederik's input, my  point was I would have
preferred he contact me in private about any criticisms he had
for me personally before criticizing the way I wrote my bug
report in public. That is what I would have done if I wanted to
criticize him. But he is the one who made the first criticism
of a Debian volunteer in PUBLIC. So to defend myself, it had
to also be in public. That is why defamation is not the only
issue to discuss here. The other is privacy and whether or
not Debian 

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Andy Smith]

Hello,

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 09:06:34AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 05:31:47 PM The Wanderer wrote:
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994899 - specifically.
> > the first reply (comment 10).

[…]

> I've read over message #5, and without being a Debian developer or a user of 
> Xen, aside from being a little longer / wordier than probably necessary, I 
> don't see anything so objectionable about it.

[ I am not a member of the Debian Xen team and haven't contributed
anything to this particular bug, but I have followed it all as I
have an interest in the team's work. ]

It's not outrageously objectionable, it's just not a very good bug
report with some *slightly* objectionable elements and background.

This whole thing is pretty mundane and has been blown out of all
proportion by Chuck failing to handle reasonable advice given by
someone trying to help in good faith. Also what would have remained
with a very niche audience (people interested in Debian's Xen
packages) has now been shown to a much wider audience as a
consequence of Chuck bringing this to the attention of debian-user.

To explain a bit more of the background, you'll see that Chuck
referred to another bug in that bug log and a lot of other
discussion took place there. Some of the things that are wrong with
Chuck's bug are that Chuck criticised the Debian Xen team for
including particular patches, and made some other factually
incorrect statements, and wrote in a style as if as if the situation
were fully known about by the Debian Xen team while valiant users
like Chuck are crushed underfoot.

In reality, the Debian Xen team didn't have good visibility of the
issue and it's not yet been proven where exactly the bug lies. Even
if it was shown to be in a patch that the team HAD taken on
questionable basis, so what, we are all volunteers here, there is no
need to berate people for their good faith efforts, we should expect
bug reports to just focus on finding and fixing the bug not as
someone's platform to deal out a blame narrative.

Basically it's not a big deal and could have easily been turned
around; I felt #10 was a fairly gentle request to focus on the facts
and make progress but to say the criticism was not received well
would be an understatement!

For example, one of the "strongest" statements in #10 is

"It's good that you filed this bug against the Debian Xen
package […] way you went about it ... not so good."

Chuck's response to that seems to have been to go about complaining
in multiple unrelated locations of how he has been accused of being
"not good". Note that he's morphed a statement of "your bug report
was not done in a good way" into "someone in the Debian community
told me I was not a good person; remove their slander or risk being
sued". A dramatic misrepresentation of what actually happened. The
rest of it is full of things like that.

It could be partially understandable if #10 had simply said, "your
bug report sucks," which believe me, I have seen and continue to see
even from long standing Debian Developers. But Diederik did also
take the time to give useful advice about HOW to move the situation
forward, in fact that was the majority of the response.

> I'm not sure which message Chuck wants deleted -- #5 or #10 (if either), but 
> I'm not sure he has "standing" to ask that #10 be deleted -- it seems he 
> would 
> have to contact the writer of message #10 and ask him to ask that message #10 
> be deleted.

I hope #10 is not deleted as it contains a lot of useful advice for
anyone else who experiences this bug and wants to help resolve it.
I'd also say that I can see Diederik is still working on narrowing
down where the bug lies, so the work of Diederik and potentially
others on the bug in question clearly isn't over, it can just
now proceed without Chuck's further input.

Though Chuck did clearly say that he wanted #10 deleted and
apparently now says that he has agreement that it will be from
someone official:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2021/09/msg00802.html

I remain sceptical that this is an accurate report of whatever
discussion that Chuck has had with the powers that be. :)

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[rhkramer]

On Friday, September 24, 2021 05:31:47 PM The Wanderer wrote:
> Based on what I've found in digging earlier, as well as the name
> mentioned by Andy Smith in his reply, I think it's probably
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994899 - specifically.
> the first reply (comment 10).

Not replying specifically to The Wanderer, but just to this post which mentions 
that the message at issue is #10, and noting that message was not written by 
Chuck and instead written by someone from the Debian side at least partially 
"critiquiing" Chuck's message #5.

I've read over message #5, and without being a Debian developer or a user of 
Xen, aside from being a little longer / wordier than probably necessary, I 
don't see anything so objectionable about it.

I'm not sure which message Chuck wants deleted -- #5 or #10 (if either), but 
I'm not sure he has "standing" to ask that #10 be deleted -- it seems he would 
have to contact the writer of message #10 and ask him to ask that message #10 
be deleted.

Just my $0.02.

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Tom Dial]

On 9/24/21 05:45, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the
> Debian bug tracking system which is hosted
> on a public, Debian website in response to a
> bug report I made.
> 
> Since Debian's policy is to keep everything
> on its website public, and I was told every
> message I send regarding Debian must be
> put on Debian's public forums, then how
> can I try and work out a disagreement with
> someone in private emails instead of needing
> to expose the dispute in public with all the
> negativity, slander, and defamation that
> might entail?
> 
> I am willing to cooperate with anyone to help
> improve Debian software, but only if they
> agree to not accuse me in public of wrongdoing
> without first discussing the matter with me
> in a private email or other private forum.
> 
> I am not interested in suing Debian for what
> happened to me, but I would not be surprised
> if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get sued
> unless it scrubs its website of some of the
> comments people make about each other on
> Debian public forums.
> 

As far as the US is concerned, a lawsuit might be filed, but the
Communications Decency Act, Section 230 (47 USC 230) is likely to
protect the Debian Project insofar as it is a provider of an information
service in the form of public forums. Under that section, they may
moderate as the administrators or managers think appropriate, including
removal of items they might think defamatory; but moderation is not
required and they are not held liable as "publishers" of what users post.

Individual users might  be sued for allegedly defamatory statements on a
forum. They get no section 230 protection, but the US Constitution's
first amendment and the rather extensive derived jurisprudence protects
a lot of opinionated and arguably rude statements that some might
consider defamatory and that in some countries may be legally actionable
as such.

It is much better, and almost always much more productive, to avoid
personal attacks and maintain polite demeanor in discussions.

Regards,
Tom Dial

> Thoughts?

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Joe Pfeiffer]

The Wanderer  writes:

> On 2021-09-24 at 14:00, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>> Chuck Zmudzinski  writes:
>> 
>>> I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the Debian bug tracking
>>> system which is hosted on a public, Debian website in response to
>>> a bug report I made.
>> 
>> Bug number?
>
> Based on what I've found in digging earlier, as well as the name
> mentioned by Andy Smith in his reply, I think it's probably
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994899 - specifically.
> the first reply (comment 10).
>
> The key to finding it was learning that you can search bugs.debian.org
> by submitter E-mail address, and trying
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?submitter=brchuckz%40netscape.net
>
> based on the address used for posting here.

Ah, thank you.  I looked briefly for a way to search by submitter and
didn't find that.

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Thomas Hochstein]

Joe Pfeiffer schrieb:

> Bug number?

994899

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Jonathan Dowland]

Are you still at it?

Have you not heard of the Streisand effect?


--
Please do not CC me for listmail.

  Jonathan Dowland
✎j...@debian.org
   https://jmtd.net

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[The Wanderer]

On 2021-09-24 at 14:00, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

> Chuck Zmudzinski  writes:
> 
>> I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the Debian bug tracking
>> system which is hosted on a public, Debian website in response to
>> a bug report I made.
> 
> Bug number?

Based on what I've found in digging earlier, as well as the name
mentioned by Andy Smith in his reply, I think it's probably
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994899 - specifically.
the first reply (comment 10).

The key to finding it was learning that you can search bugs.debian.org
by submitter E-mail address, and trying

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?submitter=brchuckz%40netscape.net

based on the address used for posting here.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Andy Smith]

Hello,

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 03:34:28PM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> My question though is, can emails be deleted from the debian
> archive of the mailing list (and comments from the debian bug
> list?)?

I've seen spam emails deleted from the list archives and from bug
logs; there is even a link to report such. Also when there has been
abusive posting of people's personal information ("doxxing") and
other forms of off-topic trolling in bug reports I am sure I have
seen that be removed from the bug record.

So, the functionality exists to delete from the Debian-hosted side
of things certainly. I take the list FAQ entry to mean that for
practical purposes list postings can't be removed from all the
non-Debian places they will have been archived at.

I really don't know if the powers that be would be receptive to
deleting Chuck's bug though, since some of it was actually on-topic.

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[piorunz]

Hello Chuck Zmudzinski.

On 24/09/2021 18:37, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:


However, if Debian refuses to remove defamatory comments,
perhaps Debian could be held liable if Debian refuses to remove
comments at a person's request if the comments truly harm a
person's good reputation and, for example, destroys a person's
ability to get a job in software development, or anywhere else
for that matter. Who would hire me if they read what is now
being said about me by Andy Smith, et. al. on Debian's web
pages. If Debian wants to be sure to avoid such a lawsuit,
I think Debian should remove at least some comments to
completely avoid legal liability. I am sure I could find a lawyer
in the U.S. to try it if I wanted to.


Is this guy for real? I missed all the fun in bug report haha.

We are Debian. We the People. Debian doesn't need US facing legal
entity, which you can sue over, to operate. Or any entity for that
matter. Suing Debian is like suing Bitcoin. Good luck with that lol.
I now quoted your comment in my e-mail. How are you going to remove
content from my sent e-mail?

PS. I wouldn't employ you either.

--
With kindest regards, Piotr.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[piorunz]

On 24/09/2021 20:34, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:


Could you please delete my name / details / remove the mail"

Practically, this is impossible: the mailing lists are archived,
potentially

cached by Google and so on. Unfortunately, there is nothing much we can
do to

ensure that all copies anywhere on the Internet are deleted. Asking to
do this

may only serve to draw further attention - the so-called "Streisand effect"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect




Exactly my thoughts! More Chuck is talking about it, more impossible it
will be to disconnect his name from this calamity.

--
With kindest regards, Piotr.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[rhkramer]

On Friday, September 24, 2021 01:55:41 PM Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> Can I suggest you read the FAQ posted to this list monthly by me.
> 
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2021/09/msg6.html is the latest
> copy.
> 
> The last point about deleting emails and personal details is relevant,
> here, I think.

I am not the OP, but I went ahead an re-read part of that today.  Re this 
part: 


* One question that comes up on almost all Debian lists from time to time is 
of
  the form: 
  "I have done something wrong / included personal details in an email.
   Could you please delete my name / details / remove the mail"
  
Practically, this is impossible: the mailing lists are archived, potentially 
cached by Google and so on. Unfortunately, there is nothing much we can do to 
ensure that all copies anywhere on the Internet are deleted. Asking to do this
may only serve to draw further attention - the so-called "Streisand effect" 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

My question though is, can emails be deleted from the debian archive of the 
mailing list (and comments from the debian bug list?)?
Thanks!

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Joe Pfeiffer]

Chuck Zmudzinski  writes:

> I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the
> Debian bug tracking system which is hosted
> on a public, Debian website in response to a
> bug report I made.

Bug number?

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 01:37:45PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> On 9/24/2021 8:04 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:45:03 -0400
> > Chuck Zmudzinski  wrote:
> > 
> > Hello Chuck,
> > 
> > > happened to me, but I would not be surprised
> > > if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get sued
> > > unless it scrubs its website of some of the
> > In the USA, Section 230 covers this;  Debian can't be held liable for
> > comments made by others using their systems.
> > 
> 
> However, if Debian refuses to remove defamatory comments,
> perhaps Debian could be held liable if Debian refuses to remove
> comments at a person's request if the comments truly harm a
> person's good reputation and, for example, destroys a person's
> ability to get a job in software development, or anywhere else
> for that matter. Who would hire me if they read what is now
> being said about me by Andy Smith, et. al. on Debian's web
> pages. If Debian wants to be sure to avoid such a lawsuit,
> I think Debian should remove at least some comments to
> completely avoid legal liability. I am sure I could find a lawyer
> in the U.S. to try it if I wanted to.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chuck
> 

Hello Chuck,

Can I suggest you read the FAQ posted to this list monthly by me.

https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2021/09/msg6.html is the latest
copy.

The last point about deleting emails and personal details is relevant, here,
I think.

With every good wish, as ever,

Andrew Cater

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Jim Popovitch]

On Fri, 2021-09-24 at 13:37 -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:

> Who would hire me if they read what is now being said about me by Andy Smith, 
> et. al. on Debian's web pages. 

Lots of people.  Anyone who would not hire you based on your bug report,
or what others have said about you and your but report, are not worth
being employed by.

-Jim P.

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Peter Ehlert]

Respectful sir, please review what you just wrote on a public facing page.

I for one would not want you in my work place.
Best Wishes with your job search.

BTW: the internet is Forever. It can't be cancelled.

On September 24, 2021 10:38:01 AM Chuck Zmudzinski  
wrote:



On 9/24/2021 8:04 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:45:03 -0400
Chuck Zmudzinski  wrote:

Hello Chuck,


happened to me, but I would not be surprised
if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get sued
unless it scrubs its website of some of the

In the USA, Section 230 covers this;  Debian can't be held liable for
comments made by others using their systems.



However, if Debian refuses to remove defamatory comments,
perhaps Debian could be held liable if Debian refuses to remove
comments at a person's request if the comments truly harm a
person's good reputation and, for example, destroys a person's
ability to get a job in software development, or anywhere else
for that matter. Who would hire me if they read what is now
being said about me by Andy Smith, et. al. on Debian's web
pages. If Debian wants to be sure to avoid such a lawsuit,
I think Debian should remove at least some comments to
completely avoid legal liability. I am sure I could find a lawyer
in the U.S. to try it if I wanted to.

Cheers,

Chuck

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/24/2021 8:04 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:45:03 -0400
Chuck Zmudzinski  wrote:

Hello Chuck,


happened to me, but I would not be surprised
if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get sued
unless it scrubs its website of some of the

In the USA, Section 230 covers this;  Debian can't be held liable for
comments made by others using their systems.



However, if Debian refuses to remove defamatory comments,
perhaps Debian could be held liable if Debian refuses to remove
comments at a person's request if the comments truly harm a
person's good reputation and, for example, destroys a person's
ability to get a job in software development, or anywhere else
for that matter. Who would hire me if they read what is now
being said about me by Andy Smith, et. al. on Debian's web
pages. If Debian wants to be sure to avoid such a lawsuit,
I think Debian should remove at least some comments to
completely avoid legal liability. I am sure I could find a lawyer
in the U.S. to try it if I wanted to.

Cheers,

Chuck

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/24/2021 8:04 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:45:03 -0400
Chuck Zmudzinski  wrote:

Hello Chuck,


happened to me, but I would not be surprised
if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get sued
unless it scrubs its website of some of the

In the USA, Section 230 covers this;  Debian can't be held liable for
comments made by others using their systems.



I am already satisfied that Debian has officially offered
to hear my side of the story and scrub the public
facing web pages that legitmetely offend me.

Debian won't be held liable in this case because
Andy Smith et al who have accused me of being
"damned" on the public forums do not officially
speak for Debian.

Cheers,

Chuck

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Jonathan Carter]

Hi Chuck

On 2021/09/24 13:45, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:

I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the
Debian bug tracking system which is hosted
on a public, Debian website in response to a
bug report I made.

Since Debian's policy is to keep everything
on its website public, and I was told every
message I send regarding Debian must be
put on Debian's public forums, then how
can I try and work out a disagreement with
someone in private emails instead of needing
to expose the dispute in public with all the
negativity, slander, and defamation that
might entail?

I am willing to cooperate with anyone to help
improve Debian software, but only if they
agree to not accuse me in public of wrongdoing
without first discussing the matter with me
in a private email or other private forum.

I am not interested in suing Debian for what
happened to me, but I would not be surprised
if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get sued
unless it scrubs its website of some of the
comments people make about each other on
Debian public forums.


You can (and we'd appreciate it if you would) contact the Debian Community 
team directly (which would not be public) at:


commun...@debian.org

Please include the details like the relevant bug numbers and as much other 
detail as possible.


thanks,

-Jonathan

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/24/2021 10:10 AM, Jonathan Carter wrote:

Hi Chuck

On 2021/09/24 13:45, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:

I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the
Debian bug tracking system which is hosted
on a public, Debian website in response to a
bug report I made.

Since Debian's policy is to keep everything
on its website public, and I was told every
message I send regarding Debian must be
put on Debian's public forums, then how
can I try and work out a disagreement with
someone in private emails instead of needing
to expose the dispute in public with all the
negativity, slander, and defamation that
might entail?

I am willing to cooperate with anyone to help
improve Debian software, but only if they
agree to not accuse me in public of wrongdoing
without first discussing the matter with me
in a private email or other private forum.

I am not interested in suing Debian for what
happened to me, but I would not be surprised
if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get sued
unless it scrubs its website of some of the
comments people make about each other on
Debian public forums.


You can (and we'd appreciate it if you would) contact the Debian 
Community team directly (which would not be public) at:


commun...@debian.org

Please include the details like the relevant bug numbers and as much 
other detail as possible.


thanks,

-Jonathan


It is Bug #994899, I ask that you remove every message except for my 
original bug report
from the public facing servers. I leave it to the package maintainers to 
decide things
like bug severity, etc. I think it is clear from why I want this if you 
read the whole
bug report. Please read the bug report with all its messages, and I was 
especially upset
that I was accused of being "not good" = bad, and just plain "wrong," 
and "ranting," etc.
If you have any more questions, please reply to me privately and 
off-list. Also read the
message Andy Smith posted in response to my post on the debian-user 
mailing list:


https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2021/09/msg00790.html

I do not ask you to remove that message unless you think you should, but 
I cite it

as evidence that there is a problem within the Debian community about not
observing just plain common decency and respect for other persons.

Thank you,

Chuck Zmudzinski

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/24/2021 9:19 AM, Andy Smith wrote:

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 07:45:03AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:

I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the Debian bug tracking
system

That is an interesting point of view, but I think you were simply
accused of being factually wrong and creating a poor quality bug
report. It was your choice to take that extremely personally.


how can I try and work out a disagreement with someone in private
emails instead of needing to expose the dispute in public with all
the negativity, slander, and defamation that might entail?

You were not asked to continue a disagreement in public, you were
asked to provide several pieces of factual information about your
setup and experience so that you could be helped.

My advice is to do that and only that. I see that you already
started doing it, but you still could not resist surrounding that
with large amounts of extraneous emotive text. And now it's leaked
onto debian-user.

Just write facts in the bug report that are relevant to the bug and
not he-said she-said he did this to me, they lied about this. blah
blah. If you can't, then just stop, as you already suggested you
would.


I am willing to cooperate with anyone to help improve Debian
software, but only if they agree to not accuse me in public of
wrongdoing without first discussing the matter with me in a
private email or other private forum.

You may be surprised to find that you get no takers for your "allow
me to rant in your ear but you must never disagree with me"
collaboration style.


I am not interested in suing Debian for what happened to me, but I
would not be surprised if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get
sued unless it scrubs its website of some of the comments people
make about each other on Debian public forums.

Debian doesn't exist as a US entity, so good luck with that. Even
writing about theoretically suing Debian because you can't write a
coherent bug report makes you look like the worst kind of Internet
laughing stock.


Thoughts?

I followed the bug you reported and thought that Diederik's response
to you was exactly on the mark. I also was in the IRC channel where
Diederik spent considerable time asking other developers questions
just so that Diederik could help solve your bug report. I feel very
sorry for Diederik that this effort was spent only to get this sort
of tantrum from you.

That you interpreted Diederik's advice as an attack I think says
more about you than anything else and I recommend that you stop this
overreaction now before you leave even more of a damning impression
of yourself.

After seeing what you have put Diederik through I would have
absolutely no desire to spend effort helping you on a future problem
and I think that is likely to be the view of others also. This
behaviour is not helping your cause.


I have no "cause" I am pursuing. I submitting the bug
report to help make Debian better. It does not reflect
well on the Debian community if this is the way it
treats someone who tries to help.

All the best,

Chuck

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/24/2021 9:19 AM, Andy Smith wrote:

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 07:45:03AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:

I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the Debian bug tracking
system

That is an interesting point of view, but I think you were simply
accused of being factually wrong and creating a poor quality bug
report. It was your choice to take that extremely personally.


how can I try and work out a disagreement with someone in private
emails instead of needing to expose the dispute in public with all
the negativity, slander, and defamation that might entail?

You were not asked to continue a disagreement in public, you were
asked to provide several pieces of factual information about your
setup and experience so that you could be helped.

My advice is to do that and only that. I see that you already
started doing it, but you still could not resist surrounding that
with large amounts of extraneous emotive text. And now it's leaked
onto debian-user.

Just write facts in the bug report that are relevant to the bug and
not he-said she-said he did this to me, they lied about this. blah
blah. If you can't, then just stop, as you already suggested you
would.


I am willing to cooperate with anyone to help improve Debian
software, but only if they agree to not accuse me in public of
wrongdoing without first discussing the matter with me in a
private email or other private forum.

You may be surprised to find that you get no takers for your "allow
me to rant in your ear but you must never disagree with me"
collaboration style.


I am not interested in suing Debian for what happened to me, but I
would not be surprised if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get
sued unless it scrubs its website of some of the comments people
make about each other on Debian public forums.

Debian doesn't exist as a US entity, so good luck with that. Even
writing about theoretically suing Debian because you can't write a
coherent bug report makes you look like the worst kind of Internet
laughing stock.


Thoughts?

I followed the bug you reported and thought that Diederik's response
to you was exactly on the mark. I also was in the IRC channel where
Diederik spent considerable time asking other developers questions
just so that Diederik could help solve your bug report. I feel very
sorry for Diederik that this effort was spent only to get this sort
of tantrum from you.

That you interpreted Diederik's advice as an attack I think says
more about you than anything else and I recommend that you stop this
overreaction now before you leave even more of a damning impression
of yourself.




After seeing what you have put Diederik through I would have
absolutely no desire to spend effort helping you on a future problem
and I think that is likely to be the view of others also. This
behaviour is not helping your cause.

Regards,
Andy


In your opinion, I am "damned." I sure am glad you are not God.

All the best,

Chuck

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Brad Rogers]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:45:03 -0400
Chuck Zmudzinski  wrote:

Hello Chuck,

>happened to me, but I would not be surprised
>if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get sued
>unless it scrubs its website of some of the

In the USA, Section 230 covers this;  Debian can't be held liable for
comments made by others using their systems.

-- 
 Regards  _
 / )  "The blindingly obvious is never immediately apparent"
/ _)rad   "Is it only me that has a working delete key?"
Tell the dinosaurs they just won't survive
The History Of The World (Part 1) - The Damned


pgpeWZtpT5he4.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Andy Smith]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 07:45:03AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the Debian bug tracking
> system

That is an interesting point of view, but I think you were simply
accused of being factually wrong and creating a poor quality bug
report. It was your choice to take that extremely personally.

> how can I try and work out a disagreement with someone in private
> emails instead of needing to expose the dispute in public with all
> the negativity, slander, and defamation that might entail?

You were not asked to continue a disagreement in public, you were
asked to provide several pieces of factual information about your
setup and experience so that you could be helped.

My advice is to do that and only that. I see that you already
started doing it, but you still could not resist surrounding that
with large amounts of extraneous emotive text. And now it's leaked
onto debian-user.

Just write facts in the bug report that are relevant to the bug and
not he-said she-said he did this to me, they lied about this. blah
blah. If you can't, then just stop, as you already suggested you
would.

> I am willing to cooperate with anyone to help improve Debian
> software, but only if they agree to not accuse me in public of
> wrongdoing without first discussing the matter with me in a
> private email or other private forum.

You may be surprised to find that you get no takers for your "allow
me to rant in your ear but you must never disagree with me"
collaboration style.

> I am not interested in suing Debian for what happened to me, but I
> would not be surprised if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get
> sued unless it scrubs its website of some of the comments people
> make about each other on Debian public forums.

Debian doesn't exist as a US entity, so good luck with that. Even
writing about theoretically suing Debian because you can't write a
coherent bug report makes you look like the worst kind of Internet
laughing stock.

> Thoughts?

I followed the bug you reported and thought that Diederik's response
to you was exactly on the mark. I also was in the IRC channel where
Diederik spent considerable time asking other developers questions
just so that Diederik could help solve your bug report. I feel very
sorry for Diederik that this effort was spent only to get this sort
of tantrum from you.

That you interpreted Diederik's advice as an attack I think says
more about you than anything else and I recommend that you stop this
overreaction now before you leave even more of a damning impression
of yourself.

After seeing what you have put Diederik through I would have
absolutely no desire to spend effort helping you on a future problem
and I think that is likely to be the view of others also. This
behaviour is not helping your cause.

Regards,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the
Debian bug tracking system which is hosted
on a public, Debian website in response to a
bug report I made.

Since Debian's policy is to keep everything
on its website public, and I was told every
message I send regarding Debian must be
put on Debian's public forums, then how
can I try and work out a disagreement with
someone in private emails instead of needing
to expose the dispute in public with all the
negativity, slander, and defamation that
might entail?

I am willing to cooperate with anyone to help
improve Debian software, but only if they
agree to not accuse me in public of wrongdoing
without first discussing the matter with me
in a private email or other private forum.

I am not interested in suing Debian for what
happened to me, but I would not be surprised
if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get sued
unless it scrubs its website of some of the
comments people make about each other on
Debian public forums.

Thoughts?