Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.project > #10008 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-20 22:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-12-29 01:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 15 on this page of 115 — 40 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project
Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-20 22:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2018-12-20 23:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2018-12-20 23:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-21 00:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 00:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-21 01:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com> - 2018-12-21 01:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2019-01-04 14:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-04 15:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 19:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 19:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 19:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 20:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 21:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 13:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> - 2019-01-05 05:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 05:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-05 18:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2019-01-06 00:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 01:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-07 19:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2019-01-07 19:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> - 2019-01-10 00:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-10 01:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2019-01-10 06:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-10 15:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2019-01-10 21:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-10 22:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Matthew Vernon <matthew@debian.org> - 2019-01-10 23:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-11 12:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Matthew Vernon <matthewv@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-11 14:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-11 20:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-01-12 00:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-11 18:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-10 01:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-04 19:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 20:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-04 20:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 20:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-04 21:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 07:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-06 23:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-07 17:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2019-01-07 17:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian <flackjacket5@tutanota.com> - 2019-01-07 19:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-07 19:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 02:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 02:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 02:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 04:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 04:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-08 04:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 16:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 05:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 05:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 10:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 03:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 04:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 05:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 10:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 11:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 11:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Christian Kastner <ckk@kvr.at> - 2019-01-08 12:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-08 14:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 18:20 +0100
[OT] distributions without systemd (was: Re: Censorship in Debian) Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2019-01-08 20:00 +0100
Re: [OT] distributions without systemd Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 21:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-08 20:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 20:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2019-01-08 19:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2019-01-05 21:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-05 22:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 23:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 23:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 13:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-06 20:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2019-01-06 17:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martín Ferrari <tincho@tincho.org> - 2019-01-08 13:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 21:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 22:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2019-01-04 23:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 02:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 02:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2018-12-21 08:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2018-12-21 11:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2018-12-21 01:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-21 09:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Chris Lamb <lamby@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 12:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Geert Stappers <stappers@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 19:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> - 2018-12-22 19:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 09:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2018-12-21 04:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 10:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de> - 2018-12-23 21:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Marcin Kulisz <debian@kulisz.net> - 2018-12-24 10:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-24 13:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 04:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> - 2018-12-25 17:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> - 2018-12-26 00:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org> - 2018-12-26 00:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2018-12-29 06:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> - 2018-12-29 09:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2018-12-26 09:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2018-12-26 09:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2018-12-26 14:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2018-12-28 07:50 +0100
Re: Cyberbullying (was: Censorship) in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-29 00:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2018-12-26 15:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> - 2018-12-26 16:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 17:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> - 2018-12-27 03:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 17:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2018-12-27 14:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2018-12-28 08:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> - 2018-12-29 01:30 +0100
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-29 06:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xafvP-5AH-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10035 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:44:38PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > Instead, DAM ruled a verdict, and influenced other people to the > point that "because DAM ruled" was given as a reason for other > measures. This was an unconstitutional abuse of DAM's powers, Regardless of anything else, this is not unconstitutional. The constitution gives the DPL the power to delegate decisions about approving and expelling developers; the DPL delegates this power to the DAM; thus any exercise of this power is constitutional. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-29 09:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xaial-7el-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10065 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
also sprach Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> [2018-12-29 06:21 +0100]:
>Regardless of anything else, this is not unconstitutional. The constitution
>gives the DPL the power to delegate decisions about approving and expelling
>developers;
Correct, but this wasn't about approving or expelling developers.
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@d.o> @martinkrafft
: :' : proud Debian developer
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
"academia is really just a way to help those with high volumes of
nothing to say to social status."
-- myself on #debian-devel, 01 Feb 2007
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-26 09:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <x9cTn-mM-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10034 |
Le Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 01:13:53AM +0900, Norbert Preining a écrit : > > * The demotion to Debian Maintainer is - as far as I read the > consitution [3], the delegation of DAM [4], and the DAM Wiki page > about their rights and powers [5], not legit since besides expulsion > there is not procedure laid out for demotion, but I refrained from > raising this for the sake of peace. Hi everybody, I have read so many distrurbing things on this expulsion that I won't comment on everything, not the least because I am not a native speaker and worry to make the situation even harder by writing things that can be misunderstood. But concerning the demotion to Debian Maintainer (DM) status, I think that it is sending a wrong message to the community, that DMs do not need to hold the same standards of behaviour as Debian Developers (DDs) do. Moreover, when the DM status was proposed in 2007, it was not thought as a way of punishment for DDs. Even if one of a thousand DM has this status because of demotion, I think that this completely changes the balance on how this status serves our project. Instead of being a positive way towards joining more formally, it becomes an inferior status. Whether DD -> DM demotions will happen again and are going to become a new tool for solving social conflicts is an important decision that needs an open discussion where conesnsus is being sought. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Illkirch-Graffenstaden, Alsace, France Debian Med packaging team http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tooting from work, https://mastodon.technology/@charles_plessy Tooting from home, https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-26 09:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <x9d34-qg-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10037 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 05:35:38PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > But concerning the demotion to Debian Maintainer (DM) status, I think > that it is sending a wrong message to the community, that DMs do not > need to hold the same standards of behaviour as Debian Developers (DDs) > do. > > Moreover, when the DM status was proposed in 2007, it was not thought as > a way of punishment for DDs. Even if one of a thousand DM has this > status because of demotion, I think that this completely changes the > balance on how this status serves our project. Instead of being a > positive way towards joining more formally, it becomes an inferior > status. I understand it as a consequence of a DD being a full member while a DM not being a full member but still having some purely packaging-related rights and not as something someone specially wanted. -- WBR, wRAR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-26 14:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <x9hzH-3az-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10037 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 05:35:38PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> But concerning the demotion to Debian Maintainer (DM) status, I think
> that it is sending a wrong message to the community, that DMs do not
> need to hold the same standards of behaviour as Debian Developers (DDs)
> do.
>
> Moreover, when the DM status was proposed in 2007, it was not thought as
> a way of punishment for DDs. Even if one of a thousand DM has this
> status because of demotion, I think that this completely changes the
> balance on how this status serves our project. Instead of being a
> positive way towards joining more formally, it becomes an inferior
> status.
>
> Whether DD -> DM demotions will happen again and are going to become a
> new tool for solving social conflicts is an important decision that
> needs an open discussion where conesnsus is being sought.
I fully agree with everything quoted here.
--
cheers,
Holger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-28 07:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <x9U81-Tu-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10037 |
Le Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 05:35:38PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : > > Whether DD -> DM demotions will happen again and are going to become a > new tool for solving social conflicts is an important decision that > needs an open discussion where conesnsus is being sought. Unsurprisingly there are monster threads on explusions on debian-private. Parts are specific to some people, and parts are about procedure. I am not going to read the threads, because I do not want to be bound to secrecy about the discussion on the procedure. I think that this disucssion must be public. This disucssion can be done in a civil, slow-paced way that foccuses on exploring together the pros and cons of multiple directions. Redoing it from scratch on one of our mailing lists would be a good opportunity to reboot it in a more productive and less divisive way some time in January when everybody has cooled down. I invite the decision makers to start and lead this discussion. Have a nice day, and for those who celebrate a new year, my wishes for a happy new one ! Charles -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Akano, Uruma, Okinawa, Japan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-29 00:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Cyberbullying (was: Censorship) in Debian |
| Message-ID | <xa9JM-1XW-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10058 |
On 28/12/18 07:42, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 05:35:38PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : >> Whether DD -> DM demotions will happen again and are going to become a >> new tool for solving social conflicts is an important decision that >> needs an open discussion where conesnsus is being sought. > Unsurprisingly there are monster threads on explusions on > debian-private. Parts are specific to some people, and parts are about > procedure. I am not going to read the threads, because I do not want to > be bound to secrecy about the discussion on the procedure. Anybody with any experience of cyberbullying or harassment wouldn't simply cringe at this, they would be looking on in horror at the very existence of these "monster threads" in a community that is so influential and respected as Debian. Please take a moment and think about what is the worst that eventually happens when a community (or it's leader) abuses members in this way indefinitely. https://cyberbullying.org/cyberbullying_and_suicide_research_fact_sheet.pdf The people who unleashed this monster need to take responsibility. They have created and sustained this state of hostility, since 20 September, every other wayward communication that has come up is a consequence of that. No member of this community should ever have been expected to bear such a heavy burden. Stop this now. Make sure it never happens again in Debian. It is that simple. Regards, Daniel -- Debian Developer https://danielpocock.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-26 15:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <x9iFr-3M2-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10034 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hi, On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 01:13:53AM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote: > For those not aware of the issue, here is *my* view onto the events. > AH and DAM can answer and provide their own interpretation. I will try > to stay as objective as it is possible for me. As written in the message we sent you, none of the issues linked, taken singularly, would be worth of taking action, but taken all together they represent a long recurring trend. The reason we took action is because: > our impression is that you seem to ignore the issues raised > while attacking the people who raise them. That is not an acceptable behaviour in a community that is built by the cooperation of a diverse range of skills and people. Also, we could see, while considering the situation, that this kind of trend is not just a thing of the past. As we wrote here: > On nov 27, the antiharassment team removed your blog post from Planet > again, because of yet another reiteration of these problems. Your > response, even though it was framed like asking questions, again it read > as an accusation to the people, a delegated team in this case, who, once > again, called you out. > > On dec 4, you have unilaterally readded yourself to Planet Debian. This was another, recent repetition of the trend of attacking the people who raised issues instead of listening to them. In particular, this part of your reply to the antiharassment team, that you chose to leave out when reposting it here on -project: > Question 4: several people feel uncomfortable > --------------------------------------------- > If you consider the harassment team different from a hidden military > court or a gulag general, I expect that those who have deposed complains > do not remain anonymous. Please let me know who initiated this > procedure. I hope this helps make sense of our decision. Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-26 16:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <x9iP8-3Pa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10040 |
Hi Enrico, > raised issues instead of listening to them. In particular, this part of > your reply to the antiharassment team, that you chose to leave out when > reposting it here on -project: I left it out because I wrote exactly this in my email to you, that I want to keep the answer about who started the discussion private - because I think it is fair that I know who started the expulsion of me, but I agreed to not publicize it. And I thought (stupid me!) I would get an answer from your. I still didn't get one single answer. Also not to the following question about who started this procedure. > > Question 4: several people feel uncomfortable > > --------------------------------------------- > > If you consider the harassment team different from a hidden military > > court or a gulag general, I expect that those who have deposed complains > > do not remain anonymous. Please let me know who initiated this > > procedure. So where is the difference to a closed military court or gulag general? The expulsion procedure as set out by the constitution, the DAM delegation and DAM description has not been followed. Proper channels have not been taken. The accused has not been heard. Just as a reminder, here is the proper procedure: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/08/msg00005.html Has the Debian Secretary been asked for Q? Have I been informed *before* the procedure? Did I have an option to answer and get supporting voices from fellow DD? You and DAM have decided, ruled, and delivered a verdict outside of any regulated and agreed upon procedures within Debian. If I am wrong here, please show us here and everyone where the procedure you have taken has been decided within Debian, and that means with agreement of the Debian Developers. Has there been an GR about this procedure? What do you consider yourself and AH Team? Above the rules? Norbert -- PREINING Norbert http://www.preining.info Accelia Inc. + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Developer GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-26 17:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <x9jLb-4nt-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10041 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018, 9:59 AM Norbert
> So where is the difference to a closed military court or gulag general?
>
I strongly encourage you to read about Gulags and understand for both
mlitary tribunal and prison camp, the result is often death. Debian can not
kill you. Debian can't silence you.
Removing a blog from the planet maybe marginally reduces readers, but
readers who are part of the community. Debian can not rst connections to
your blog. There is no speech being repressed.
You're a software engineer, living in very nice circumstances working with
other people on a hobby project together.
Get some perspective.
To all on this thread: stop marginalizing those who actually face death and
life in prison for speaking their mind. The comparison cheapens their life.
Stand up for those who have fought for our rights by not drawing such petty
comparisons.
Debian is not able to do anything anyone would do to anyone in a gulag.
Please, all, get some perspective and stop with the comparisons to labor
camps, targeted killings, prisons and sentences of death. We sound like
morons.
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-27 03:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <x9tKx-1WB-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10042 |
Paul, On Wed, 26 Dec 2018, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > Please, all, get some perspective and stop with the comparisons to labor > camps, targeted killings, prisons and sentences of death. We sound like You did not understand the meaning of this comparison: The point was that the correct agreed upon and legal procedures have not been followed. And you deliberately removed this part from your email and consideration. It is not about the planet, it is about expulsion that did not follow the rules. This *can* be consider a libel case due to influences on my professional life. Best Norbert -- PREINING Norbert http://www.preining.info Accelia Inc. + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Developer GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-27 17:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <x9GeK-RQ-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10043 |
This entire thread is so cringy, this is likely my last reply. On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 9:31 PM Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> wrote: > > Paul, > > On Wed, 26 Dec 2018, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > > Please, all, get some perspective and stop with the comparisons to labor > > camps, targeted killings, prisons and sentences of death. We sound like > > You did not understand the meaning of this comparison: The point was > that the correct agreed upon and legal procedures have not been > followed. And you deliberately removed this part from your email and > consideration. Gulags and military tribunals were both legal. They were not policy or procedure fouls. They were not foibles. It was intentional and targeted. They were ways to murder dissidents. Say what you want about our ability to self-govern the Debian community, and ways we've messed up, we've never killed anyone as part of the expulsion process, and the comparisons need to stop, even if I'm still "missing the point" and people consider what happened with anti-harassment unfair. A-H is not killing DDs. Stop comparing them to it. It's a very simple point. > It is not about the planet, it is about expulsion that did not follow > the rules. This *can* be consider a libel case due to influences on my > professional life. > > Best > > Norbert Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-27 14:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <x9EcW-89A-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10042 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Paul R. Tagliamonte dijo [Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 10:36:08AM -0500]: > > So where is the difference to a closed military court or gulag general? > > I strongly encourage you to read about Gulags and understand for both > mlitary tribunal and prison camp, the result is often death. Debian can not > kill you. Debian can't silence you. > (...) > To all on this thread: stop marginalizing those who actually face death and > life in prison for speaking their mind. The comparison cheapens their life. > Stand up for those who have fought for our rights by not drawing such petty > comparisons. Of course, I don't think Norbert was literal characterizing the situation as a gulag. I don't think anybody here thought he was. I don't think Norbert expected anybody to have an image of him starving to death or chilled in the steppe... Norbert rightly mentioned several aspects he considers unfair about the way this process went. He considered he didn't get a right to be heard, nor notified about the process as it was progressing towards a decision, but only notified about a final decision. I completely agree with him. and I don't think DAM's view, "he can reapply in six months, what's unfair about it?", is fair.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-28 08:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <x9V45-1r4-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10056 |
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 07:48:40AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Of course, I don't think Norbert was literal characterizing the > situation as a gulag. I don't think anybody here thought he was. I > don't think Norbert expected anybody to have an image of him starving > to death or chilled in the steppe... Even so, the comparison is unrespectful hyperbole. > Norbert rightly mentioned several aspects he considers unfair about > the way this process went. He considered he didn't get a right to > be heard, nor notified about the process as it was progressing towards > a decision, but only notified about a final decision. > > I completely agree with him. You can have that position and still see that the gulag comparison was unnecessary, unrespectful, and unhelpful. -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-29 01:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xaaFQ-2Br-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10056 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
also sprach Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> [2018-12-27 14:48 +0100]:
>He considered he didn't get a right to be heard, nor notified about
>the process as it was progressing towards a decision, but only
>notified about a final decision.
I would like to add that this — being presented with a decision,
without any form of engagement with me, before or after, is exactly
what happened in my case, except DAM kindly suggested that if
I followed theit suggestion, I would avoid expulsion. I chose to
follow those steps, despite the overstepping of competencies at the
time, also based on the promise I received that the issue would be
analysed once the waters had calmed. No such analysis ever happened.
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@d.o> @martinkrafft
: :' : proud Debian developer
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
"sometimes the urge to do bad is nearly overpowering"
-- ben horne
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project
csiph-web