On March 2, 2024 8:29:47 PM UTC, Andreas Tille <ti...@debian.org> wrote:
>Hi Jeroen,
>
>Am Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 08:48:33PM +0100 schrieb Jeroen Ploemen:
>> ...
>
>Julian had sensibly commented on this and had added interesting
>questions I'm keen on hearing your answers.
>
>> As for the inclusion of codes of conduct or similar wording,
>> documenting common sense just feels unnecessary. While being on the
>> receiving end of a compliment for bug-squashing work is certainly
>> nice, the lack thereof isn't a measure of disrespect.
>
>Julien also commented on this. Despite I never thought to spent so much
>time on the bug that triggered the discussion I consider it important
>enough to clarify some misunderstandings which obviously were caused by
>the mails I wrote about this.
>
>As a non-native speaker, I am actively working on improving my
>communication skills. I would appreciate it if you could point out which
>part of my messages led you to believe that I felt disrespected. My
>intention was simply to provide some insight into why the task someone
>scheduled for me was not high on my priority list during my spare time.
>
>To summarize the visible facts:
>
> 2023-12-12 serious bug #1058177 was filed, solution for this kind of
> bugs is simple for maintainers comfortable with Python 3.12
>
> 2023-12-22 closed with changelog
> [ Andreas Tille ]
> * Set DPT maintainer
> * Replace SafeConfigParser deprecated in Python3.12
> Closes: #1058177
> * Transparently skip test_bad_pagebuilder instead of ignoring test suite
> errors
>
> --> I confirm "Set DPT mainter" was in conflict with DPT policy since
> I just forgot about that very detail and considered it some
> unintended oversight. I will not do this again as long as this
> policy is not changed
>
> Response in Salsa comment[1]
>
> Sandro Tosi: @tille please explain why you think this is appropriate
>
> Andreas Tille: In all teams I know policy says the team address should be put
> as Maintainer. After checking DPT policy again again I realise it gives both
> options with different meanings. Sorry about that and feel free to revert.
>
> Sandro Tosi: @tille you made the mistake, so you do the reverting and the
> uploading to rectify it.
>
>
>Comment: That seems fair. If my real-life boss had asked, I would have
>done it, considering he pays me for it. Fortunately, my day job boss
>knows how to motivate me better. I wouldn't had brought this up on my
>own behalf. I just went into more detail to explain why I did not fixed
>my mistake immediately. As a volunteer, I have the freedom to choose
>which tasks to prioritize. A little kindness in communication can
>significantly impact my priorities. I wasn't expecting a "thank you for
>fixing the bug," but I believe it's unrealistic for Sandro to expect me
>to follow such commands as a volunteer. (Fun fact: I was throwing the
>last two paragraphs into a LLM and besides fixing my paragraph several
>changes where suggested to Sandro's quote.)
>
>
>sphinxtesters (0.2.3-4) unstable; urgency=medium
>
> * Revert attempt by a rogue developer to hijack this package
>
> -- Sandro Tosi <mo...@debian.org> Sun, 14 Jan 2024 01:25:23 -0500
>
>
>I wonder how the attribute 'rogue' is supported by the discussion above,
>nor where the intention to hijack the package is inferred from.
>
>
>sphinxtesters (0.2.3-5) unstable; urgency=medium
>
> * orphan
>
> -- Sandro Tosi <mo...@debian.org> Thu, 29 Feb 2024 01:55:25 -0500
>
>
>I admit the last upload makes the initial request to revert the
>Maintainer change questionable. I also confirm that I have experienced
>worse things before than giving me the attribute "rogue" or blaming
>me about bad intentions. Fine for me I developed some thick skin
>meanwhile.
>
>> I cannot recall
>> any discussion on the team's IRC channel or mailing list crossing
>> that line.
>
>If you cannot recall anything that crossed the line I intended to draw
>explicitly in our policy through my MR[2], I am curious to know where,
>in your opinion, this falls in relation to our goal of 'striving to
>create a kind and inviting atmosphere among team members.' If it would
>be only about me, I would simply move on (which I did until there was
>another point of friction with no public traces). But it does concern
>fostering a welcoming team environment. In my view, this crosses the
>line, and I am grateful to have been part of teams where such incidents
>were not tolerated.
>
>Kind regards
> Andreas.
>
>[1]
>https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/sphinxtesters/-/commit/d8b1083db26c753c8a76dd91b7e91f3ef98c0515#note_450676
>[2]
>https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/merge_requests/21
>
It's possible I am misunderstanding you here (languages are hard even when they
are your first), but if I am not, I think you are not really seeing things from
the correct perspective. Here's my summary of what I understand your argument
to be:
I did not follow the team policy and didn't care about the other people
involved to rectify the error. They were upset about this, so clearly this
mess is all their fault. We should change the rules so that I won't have been
wrong.
I absolutely do not know how to respond to that level of entitlement.
Hopefully I have misunderstood what you are trying to communicate?
Scott K
