Am 9. November 2026 15:24:30 UTC schrieb Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]>: >Quoting Tobias Frost (2026-11-09 14:55:22) >> Am 9. November 2026 13:14:53 UTC schrieb Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]>: >> >Quoting Tobias Frost (2026-11-09 12:26:38) >> >> Am 9. November 2026 08:38:41 UTC schrieb Jonas Smedegaard >> >> <[email protected]>: >> >> >Quoting Ansgar 🙀 (2026-11-09 09:21:29) >> >> >I have abosolutely no idea who in the Debian project you are describing >> >> >as wanting to kick anyone else out of Debian. >> >> >> >> Am 9. November 2026 08:38:41 UTC schrieb Jonas Smedegaard >> >> <[email protected]>: >> >> >Quoting Ansgar 🙀 (2026-11-09 09:21:29) >> >> >I have abosolutely no idea who in the Debian project you are describing >> >> >as wanting to kick anyone else out of Debian. >> >> >> >> Ian was directly calling for disciplinary action, at least that's how I >> >> read his remarks. I'm unfortunately also failing to see much evidence of >> >> "Assume good faith" towards the DFSG Team in his message, but maybe >> >> that's just me not being a native English speaker. >> > >> >Yes, Ian demanded our leader to "at the very least very strongly >> >criticise" which I fail to read as Ian wanting to kick anyone out of >> >Debian. >> > >> >For the record and avoidance of any possible doubt, I do not wish for >> >or demand that anyone be kicked out of Debian. Not now nor ever before. >> > >> > >> > - Jonas >> > >> >> I read Ian's remarks differently. Asking who should be referred to CT or >> DAM, even under the guise of a hypothetical question, is in my reading >> clearly suggesting disciplinary action. > >I don't understand what it is you read differently than me: I agree >with you that Ian demands disciplinary action. > >> I also find his choice of wording quite telling: the hypothetical framing >> and repeated rhetorical questions give his accusations a veneer of >> procedural neutrality, while the implications are anything but neutral. >> Combined with his categorical assertion that this is a conduct violation and >> his demand that Sruthi strongly criticise the team, I find it difficult to >> read this as merely a good-faith appeal for accountability. >> >> But, again, perhaps that's just me, as a non-native English speaker. > >I am a non-native english speaker as well. > >It seems to me that we agree in how we read Ian. > >Question remain in how we understand what we read - which is what you >reacted to in this subthread and what I find horrible: > >Is it your understanding that Ian wants anyone be kicked out of Debian? > > - Jonas >
No, I don't understand Ian as necessarily wanting anyone kicked out of Debian. That was not my point. My concern is that invoking CT and DAM, in the context of an alleged conduct violation, can itself have a chilling effect on the project. People should be able to take responsibility for their teams and try new approaches without having to fear that controversial decisions will be escalated into disciplinary matters. This is particularly concerning in light of the GR: Ian's own proposal, which explicitly included disciplinary consequences for LLM-related violations, did not win. I think we should be careful not to reintroduce that approach indirectly by framing disagreements over the interpretation of the winning proposal as conduct violations.
