Hi, Thank you, Dodo. I already wrote about this in debian-project mailing list, should anybody be interested: http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/07/msg00007.html
Cheers. On Friday 02 July 2010 14:27:28 Ďoďo wrote: > Manuel, > > thanks. Very nice email. > > I think you wrote what many people would like to write as well. > > I just stopped to care about being Debian Dev/Maint. > Some years ago I wanted to become first Developer and then Maintainer > as well. I was told, that I need to be Maintainer first. > So I was following the written rules about becoming the Maintainer. > But one of the "important guys" wrote me, that written rules > and reality is a bit different.. > > I do not really need to be part of community, where people behaves > like that .... > > So I continue to maintain and work on my 2 packages (asking someone > else to upload them), from time to reporting some bugs and > I do not care any more. There are many other projects where people > are may be not very polite, but at least they are following the agreed > and written rules ... > > > good luck > > Jozef > > > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Christoph, others, > > > > Sorry for the long mail, and tedious (especially the definitions), but > > I don't want to be accused again of using inexact words. > > > > On Friday 02 July 2010 10:23:37 Christoph Berg wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm preaching to the choir here, but: if you are mailing with other > >> people, and especially with those from the NM front-desk who might > >> help you with getting through the NM process, it is neither helpful > >> nor acceptable to use sentences like "Don't be silly" as the opening > >> statement, being "a bit fed up with your unofficial policies", or > >> doing finger-pointing on other NMs being processed at the same time. > >> > >> Please calm down, and come back in a few months. Thank you. > > > > 1) Re: unnofficial policies > > > > I don't find acceptable that you apply unnoficial policies that are not > > clearly stated in the webpages, and you had at least two: > > > > a) the one of the photo ID, and more importantly: > > > > b) that you can't apply to DD without being DM first, when the web > > pages *clearly* state that it's highly recommendable but not > > mandatory, and I'm an "unofficial Debian Maintainer" anyway: "It is > > highly recommended that you become familiar with the role of Debian > > Maintainer and apply for this role before applying to become a Debian > > Developer", from > > http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint . > > > > You can't turn down my application just because of an unofficial policy > > contrary to "official" texts. And now I applied for DM anyway, but > > more importantly, I was unofficial (not appearing anywhere but in > > changelog entry) maintainer of OpenSceneGraph for more than 6 months. > > Why does matter that much that I'm "official maintainer" or just do > > the work just because I care for Debian? My compromise with Debian is > > the same, becoming official DM is just a bureaucratic step. > > > > So that unnofficial policy that you invented is not good not fair to > > the applicants. It's like going on an exam when the teachers put a > > paper in the wall telling to study chapters 1 to 10, and you find that > > you have also questions from chapters 11 and 12. > > > > To add insult to injury, I asked in the list before if signatures by DM > > were as valid as DD, by other words, if they were "Debian Members" or > > not (which is all what some documents say), and pointing the > > incoherence of the photo ID. And you replied me thanking for spotting > > the thing about the photo ID and removing it, and also telling that > > maybe I was confused and meant that I wanted to be DM instead of DD or > > something like that. You knew that you were going to deny my > > application as DD if I was not DM, so why didn't you just tell it to > > me then? You only told me that I should *consider* applying for DM > > first, and to adopt some packages was *because you didn't find me in > > any "Uploaders" field*. > > > > > > 2) Re: "Don't be silly" > > > > 2.a) Some definitions: > > > > - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/silly: "3b: exhibiting or > > indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment <a very silly > > mistake>; 3c: trifling, frivolous" > > > > - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frivolous: "2a: lacking in > > seriousness" > > > > 2.b) You know that the person to whom I replied was mocking my previous > > work in a way which I also don't find acceptable. I don't think that > > he is stupid ("foolish", in some of the acceptions/meanings of > > "silly"), so the only explanation that I find for his behaviour is > > "lacking in seriousness" (not reading my explanations in the > > application; and knowing that what he was attributing to me was > > utterly ridiculous), and I explained exacly this in my reply, saying > > "silly" as a kind of "do not joke or mock me", and explaining again my > > accomplishments in the case that he didn't understand them properly. > > Not trying to understand me (i.e., ignoring my applicaiton and the > > efforts that I'm doing to help Debian) is "lack of seriousness"; > > mocking me on these grounds is insulting me, in a way that it's more > > serious than calling someone "silly". > > > > 2.c) I thought that I was talking to hardened developers in a community > > famous for its flame wars, not having tea with the Queen of England. I > > didn't know that using the word "silly" would cause such a distress. > > > > > > 3) Re: finger-pointing > > > > 3.a) Some definitions again: > > > > - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/finger+pointing: "the act > > of making explicit and often unfair accusations of blame" > > > > - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfair: "marked by > > injustice, partiality, or deception" > > > > - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defaming: "2: to harm the > > reputation of by libel or slander" > > > > - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slander: "1: the utterance > > of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage > > another's reputation" > > > > - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evade: "2: to take refuge > > in escape or avoidance; 2c: to avoid answering directly : turn aside" > > > > - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wiles: "1: a trick or > > stratagem intended to ensnare or deceive" > > > > 3.b) So I didn't finger-point applicants to NM being processed at the > > same time, if I was doing so the conclusion would be "they don't > > deserve being Debian Developers" or "they are doing bad things", when > > I clearly say otherwise in each case: > > > > 3.b.1) "And I'm not at all against him being approved, in fact I think > > that he more than worths it." > > > > 3.b.2) "I think that he's an excellent fellow to have in Debian" > > > > 3.c) If I'm finger-pointing at somebody, "the act of making *explicit* > > accusations", is to you (you as in Front Desk, in the case that you > > also misunderstand that 'you'); on the basis that you (Front Desk or > > some of its members, I don't know) are: > > > > 3.c.1) being *silly* (this time as in "exhibiting or indicative of a > > lack of common sense or sound judgment") when mocking applicants' > > work; > > > > 3.c.2) *unfair* when judging applicants with different --and apparently > > whimsical-- criteria (which is one of the worst things that a judge can > > do, and you are the judges telling who can come in and who can not); > > > > 3.c.3) *defamatory* / *slenderers* (telling that "someone in the choir" > > is finger-pointing other NM applicants, when I didn't). > > > > 3.c.4) *evading with wiles* the real issue (whether I'm a valid > > applicant to NM or not), "preaching to the choir" and not addressing > > me directly, with the excuses that you (Cristoph) mentioned in your > > mail, which are partly false and partly bad excuses. > > > > > > 4) Therefore I claim that your behaviour ("your" as in Christoph > > Berg's, and eventually other people participating in the decision > > regarding the publication of this e-mail on the basis of our > > communication regarding the application to NM) is unacceptable, and > > that you (Christoph Berg and the rest of people participating) are not > > worthy of being trusted with the important task of judging NM > > applicants. > > > > > > Regards. > > -- > > Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <[email protected]> > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > > [email protected] Archive: > > http://lists.debian.org/[email protected] -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <[email protected]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
