On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 12:13:11AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 18025 March 1977, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > I do agree that something like Freexian and it's effects (both, good and > bad) do warrant some project internal discussions. The size (small) and > workload (huge) of our security team (and other core teams) is known. How > that could be improved (or not) with the kind of fundraising done is a topic > that had strong positions in the past. And for sure will still have that > now. > > > I do not think your mail does help this case.
What else should I have written in your opinion to help this case? My trigger was the "I am worried we might lose our security team to burnout" part around the latest point releases, which removed "nothing" from the options. > It does read quite a lot of > "they kicked me, now I fight them". That is a bad start. I have been thinking for weeks what and how to write. If I omit this part, they might slander me behind my back with the same "they kicked me, now I fight them" - and I won't have an opportunity to respond to that. My conclusion was that writing everything in the initial email was my only option. > But the most interesting part in my first read of it is this: > > > This monthly report was an example not an exception for this Freexian > > contributor, and a point could be made that a DD who is defrauding > > Debian LTS is defrauding Debian and should therefore be expelled > > from Debian. > > First, we do have a process around somewhere, if one DD thinks another > should be out of the project. Not used often, thankfully, but existing. ยง 4.1.3. is the process I would have used if that was my intention. I am a strong proponent of a fair trial. There is precedent for DAM expelling a member without prior warning and without hearing the accused before expulsion. In this case DAM would anyway not have been an option, since DAM cannot decide whether Debian LTS money is Debian money - which would be the most relevant question for a judgement. This problem is also primarily management inaction and I am not particularly interested in going after individual Freexian contributors in Debian, but vague hints instead of providing clear examples would lead nowhere. > Second, while the above is written without names, it shouldn't be hard for > people involved to find out who is meant. Something like slander, defamation > or similar could get lawyers involved. Doesn't sound like a way to take. > Please be careful what you write on our public lists. There is no good option when bringing up this kind of problems, and it is possible that I failed to find the least bad option. I tried to stay as close as possible at what is supported by public information I linked to, and provided only as many examples as I considered necessary for demonstrating problems. Is this our LTS Team as our publicity says, or an external company doing business on our infrastructure without being accountable to Debian that might get lawyers involved? For me Debian LTS was always also a part of Debian, not work for a normal company where one just has to ignore everything bad going on inside the company. > bye, Joerg cu Adrian
