Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #240300 > unrolled thread

Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@netscape.net> - 2021-09-24 13:50 +0200
    Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2021-09-24 15:30 +0200
    Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2021-09-24 16:20 +0200
      Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Jim Popovitch <jim@k4vqc.com> - 2021-09-24 20:00 +0200
      Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2021-09-24 20:00 +0200
        Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-09-24 21:40 +0200
          Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2021-09-24 21:50 +0200
          Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2021-09-24 23:00 +0200
      Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Peter Ehlert <pb21a@sdi-baja.com> - 2021-09-24 20:10 +0200
      Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2021-09-24 21:50 +0200
      Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> - 2021-09-24 23:40 +0200
    Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2021-09-24 17:00 +0200
    Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2021-09-24 20:30 +0200
      Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-09-24 23:40 +0200
        Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2021-09-25 04:40 +0200
        Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-09-25 15:10 +0200
          Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2021-09-25 16:10 +0200
            Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Jeremy Hendricks <jwh1981@gmail.com> - 2021-09-25 19:10 +0200
            Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-09-26 13:20 +0200
              Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@netscape.net> - 2021-09-26 13:30 +0200
          Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-09-26 00:40 +0200
            Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-09-26 01:50 +0200
              Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-09-26 02:00 +0200
                Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-09-26 02:10 +0200
                Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-09-26 02:10 +0200
                  Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-09-26 02:20 +0200
                    Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-09-26 13:10 +0200
                      Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-09-26 14:50 +0200
                        Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-09-26 15:00 +0200
                          Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Linux-Fan <Ma_Sys.ma@web.de> - 2021-09-26 17:20 +0200
                        Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-09-26 15:00 +0200
                    Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Peter Ehlert <pb21a@sdi-baja.com> - 2021-09-26 15:20 +0200
                Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2021-09-26 16:40 +0200
      Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Thomas Hochstein <thh@thh.name> - 2021-09-25 00:00 +0200
    Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Tom Dial <tddial@comcast.net> - 2021-09-25 07:10 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#240300 — Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

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?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#240306

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240311

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:45:03 -0400
Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@netscape.net> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240314

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240315

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 <brchuckz@netscape.net> 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/msg00006.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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240319

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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/msg00006.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: 

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240321

On 24/09/2021 20:34, rhkramer@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
> <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
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240322

Hello,

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 03:34:28PM -0400, rhkramer@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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240316

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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 <brchuckz@netscape.net> 
wrote:

> On 9/24/2021 8:04 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:45:03 -0400
>> Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@netscape.net> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240320

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
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240325

Are you still at it?

Have you not heard of the Streisand effect?


-- 
Please do not CC me for listmail.

👱🏻	Jonathan Dowland
✎	 jmtd@debian.org
🔗	https://jmtd.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240312

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:

community@debian.org

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

thanks,

-Jonathan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240318

Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@netscape.net> 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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240324

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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

> Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@netscape.net> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240334

The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> writes:

> On 2021-09-24 at 14:00, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>> Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@netscape.net> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240344

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240348

Hello,

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 09:06:34AM -0400, rhkramer@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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240352

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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 <brchuckz@netscape.net>
wrote:

> On 9/25/2021 10:02 AM, Andy Smith wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 09:06:34AM -0400, rhkramer@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 volunteers can discuss matters privately or does
> every criticism we have about another person need to
> be expressed in the public forums?
> >
> >> 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,
>
> He is probably seeing the other bug, not the bug I reported, but the
> best fix would probably fix both bugs.
> > so the work of Diederik and potentially
> > others on the bug in question clearly isn't over,
>
> That is probably the other bug, because the bug
> I saw on my hardware is already solved, I DID
> find a fix for it.
> > it can just
> > now proceed without Chuck's further input.
>
> No need. My bug is fixed, not in the official release, but
> with my patches which I shared with the community in
> both bug reports. Debian is free to find another solution
> that also solves the other bug, and if the other bug
> is solved, I will test it and see if it also solves my bug
> so I can go back to running the "official" Debian released
> version instead of my patched, unofficial version.
> >
> > 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
>
> Same to you,
>
> Chuck
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240393

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!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240395

On 9/26/2021 7:18 AM, rhkramer@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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web