1) My contributions to "bug-groff" have been marked as "spam" from 15th August 2018 (a comment to bug #54475).
In the same bug number Ingo Schwarze asks, what the consequences are to flag issues as a "spam". He does not give any definition of a "spam", so his claim can not be checked for validity, and is thus invalid based on the current state. That my text is a spam is a lie, and it is never substantiated with any facts. Ingo constructs some sentences, which are manipulative in nature: a) my reports litter the bug tracker There is no concrete explanation of this, so Ingo's statements are an imagination and deceiving. b) my reports make it (for him only?) more difficult to search (for what?). Also no concrete example! And no other possible explanations are named, thus his claim is manipulative in nature. 2) He decided that the bug numbers 54473 and 54474 are invalid, again using constructed reasons, that are manipulate in nature. a) if a report about warnings is invalid, are then the warnings themselves invalid? if yes, why are they then issued? if no, why is it then to be prohibited to report them? Must these warning be kept alive and then why? (that is, the source must (may) not be made more clear, informative for the issuer (compiler, interpreter) so that the warnings no longer apply). So, stop marking my deficit reports as being spam, stop lying! Remove the "invalid" ticket" from the bug numbers 54473 and 54474. Remove Ingo Schwarze from being allowed to misuse his status as a maintainer. ### How is the behaviour of Ingo Schwarze acceptable as a role model? an example of good (better) practices of maintenance? an example of a professional attitude? a person that judges the appropriateness of reports (without giving comprehensible arguments and the true reasons for his decisions). How are maintainers made accountable? ### See also bugs #53547 and #54475 in the bug tracker (savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?group=groff). -- Bjarni I. Gislason
