|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > February 2004 > serious problems with Mr. Troup
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
serious problems with Mr. Troup
|
|
| Ingo Juergensmann 2004-02-21, 12:33 am |
| [ This is a translated mail to the DPL. German speaking developers can
find the original text below. ]
As already brought to your attention by the forwarded mails yesterday,
there are some problems between Mr. Troup and myself.
Adam Conrad contacted me today in a query and expressed the view of Mr.
Troup to me:
11:19 <infinity> "I'm _honestly_ not picking on Ingo here, if I saw
anyone else threatening to violate these rules (and then refusing to
agree to them), I'd treat them exactly the same way."
I want to make clear, that I didn't explicitly rejected the policy, but
want to point out, why I used user/pass from arrakis for akire, which
were ok in the past and have been used widely. To approve the new
policy, I need ensured communication with Mr. Troup.
When I'm not informed about changes of policy, I simply can't follow
those policies. To avoid further misunderstandings here, I see a free
and unfiltered communication (without /ignore and/or mailfilters) as an
absolutely basic prerequisite for future cooperation. Otherwise I can't
guarantee for the security of my machines.
As long as I don't have secure positive acknowledge for a better
communication with/by Mr. Troup, I simply *can't* accept this changed
policy by good conscience.
The threatening of Mr. Troup to exclude my machines from all access
lists, may be understandable, but that will mean the dropping of the
m68k port by fact and therefore the death of Linux on m68k at all,
because Debian is the only distribution with m68k support.
This is of course not of benefit to anyone (except maybe Mr. Troup
himself), apparently. Therefore I request you as the DPL to act for
intermediation.
Without ensured and free communication (no ignores/mailfilters, replies
within 2 workdays whenever possible to mails, announcement of changes in
advance) I see no base for further cooperation with Mr. Troup (and
therefore the Project) and feel that the mutual trust is destroyed.
This would, of course, result in withdrawing of my buildd infrastucture,
namely arrakis, spice, shaihulud as well as akire. Apparently this isn't
in my sense at all, but not solvable in another way.
If there shouldn't be settled a consent until the end of February, I
expect the mutual trust as destroyed as well.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: unueberwindbare Probleme mit Mr. Troup
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:07:03 +0100
From: Ingo Juergensmann <ij>
To: leader@debian.org
[ I'll write in German to be able to express myself in the best way I can
and to avoid misunderstandings ]
Wie bereits in den gestrigen Mails angedeutet, gibt es diverse Probleme
zwischen Mr. Troup und mir.
Adam Conrad sprach mich heute wieder privat im Query an und legte mir wohl
die Sichtweise von Mr. Troup dar:
11:19 <infinity> "I'm _honestly_ not picking on Ingo here, if I saw anyone
else threatening to violate these rules (and then refusing to agree to
them),
I'd treat them exactly the same way."
Ich moechte klarstellen, dass ich nicht explizit die Policy zurueckgewiesen
habe, sondern nur darauf hingewiesen hatte, aus welchen Gruenden ich
user/pass fuer akire von arrakis benutzt hatte, was frueher durchaus ueblich
und voellig ok war, und was fuer mich eine Voraussetzung ist, um die
geaenderte Policy akzeptieren zu koennen: naemlich eine zugesicherte bessere
Kommunikation mit Mr. Troup.
Wenn ich nicht ueber Policy-Aenderungen informiert werde, kann ich diese
auch nicht befolgen. Um solche Missverstaendnisse in Zukunft zu verhindern,
sehe ich eine ungehinderte Kommunikation (ohne ignore und Mailfilter) als
absolute Grundlage der zukuenftigen Zusammenarbeit an, weil ich ansonsten
nicht fuer die Sicherheit meiner Rechner garantieren kann.
Solange ich keine entsprechende positive Zusage zur verbesserten
Kommunikation mit bzw. von Mr. Troup bekomme, *kann* ich die geaenderte
Policy nicht guten Gewissens akzeptieren.
Die Androhung von Mr. Troup den von mir gestellten Rechnern dann komplett
die Zugriffsrechte zu entziehen, mag aus seiner Sicht verstaendlich sein,
aber letztendlich hat das dann den Tod des m68k ports zur Folge und somit
faktisch den gesamten Tod von Linux auf m68k zur Folge, da Debian die
einzige Distribution mit m68k Support ist.
Dass das natuerlich in niemandens Interesse (ausser vielleicht Mr. Troups)
ist, ist offensichtlich. Insofern bitte ich um entsprechende Vermittlung des
DPL.
Ohne zugesicherte und freie Kommunikation (keine /ignores, Mailfilter, nach
Moeglichkeit eine Reaktion binnen 2 Arbeitstagen, Ankuendigungen von
Aenderungen im Vorfeld) sehe ich keine Grundlage fuer eine weitere
Zusammenhang und das Vertrauensverhaeltnis als zerruettet.
Dies wuerde natuerlich zwangsweise im Zurueckziehen meiner
buildd-Infrastruktur resultieren, sprich: arrakis, spice, shaihulud als auch
akire wuerden nicht mehr dem Debian Projekt zur Verfuegung stehen.
Es ist offensichtlich, dass dies nicht in meinem Sinne, aber leider
unumgaenglich waere.
Sollte sich bis zum Ablauf des Monats Februar keine Einigung ergeben,
betrachte ich ebenfalls das Vertrauensverhaeltnis als zerruettet an.
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Anthony Towns 2004-02-21, 1:33 am |
| On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 03:04:39PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
...a mail that appeared via debian-devel-announce.
How odd. That's a developers only list and Ingo's no developer. Who was
it signed by?
[-- PGP output follows (current time: Sun Feb 22 00:49:39 2004) --]
gpg: Signature made Sun Feb 22 00:04:39 2004 EST using DSA key ID 7F4E0E11
gpg: Good signature from "Bastian Blank <bastianb@gmx.de>"
gpg: aka "Bastian Blank <waldi_@gmx.de>"
...
Ahh. From the DMUP:
] Examples of what we consider net abuse:
] * Forged headers and / or Addresses
]
] Forging headers or messages means sending mail such that its origin
] appears to be another user or machine, or a non-existent machine.
] * Penalties
] If someone violates the rules set in this document he will be subjected
] to a penalty. The penalty depends on the number of previous violations
] and the offense involved.
]
] 1. First offense
] 1. The accounts of the offender will be suspended and access
] will not be available.
Complaints are completely off topic for announcement lists. WTF were you
thinking?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
| |
| Andreas Metzler 2004-02-21, 2:33 am |
| Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 03:04:39PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> ...a mail that appeared via debian-devel-announce.
> How odd. That's a developers only list and Ingo's no developer. Who was
> it signed by?
> [-- PGP output follows (current time: Sun Feb 22 00:49:39 2004) --]
> gpg: Signature made Sun Feb 22 00:04:39 2004 EST using DSA key ID 7F4E0E11
> gpg: Good signature from "Bastian Blank <bastianb@gmx.de>"
> gpg: aka "Bastian Blank <waldi_@gmx.de>"
> ...
> Ahh. From the DMUP:
> ] Examples of what we consider net abuse:
> ] * Forged headers and / or Addresses
> ]
> ] Forging headers or messages means sending mail such that its origin
> ] appears to be another user or machine, or a non-existent machine.
[...]
I assume Bastian received the mail from Ingo with the pledge to sign
it and bounce it to d-d-a, which is completely different.
Bouncing/forwarding e-mail from non-DDs to d-d-a is ok.
The paragraph you quoted would match if _Bastian_ wrote the mail and
made it appear to be sent by Ingo.
> Complaints are completely off topic for announcement lists.
[...]
AOL!
cu andreas
--
Hey, da ist ein Ballonautomat auf der Toilette!
Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest unstable _tin_
http://www.logic.univie.ac.at/~amet...n/tin-snapshot/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Josip Rodin 2004-02-21, 3:34 am |
| On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 03:04:39PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> As already brought to your attention by the forwarded mails yesterday,
> there are some problems between Mr. Troup and myself.
Of all the things one could _announce_ to over 3,500 people who are watching
debian-devel-_announce_, you couldn't think of anything other than this
_non-announcement_. That's just appalling as far as I am concerned.
I will discuss with my fellow listmasters whether we should hold all further
mails from you to -devel-announce after such an abuse of this announcement
list, and in fact whether all further posts should be moderated in a more
standard manner, because it's apparent that we have at least two people who
don't seem to understand the list's description and God knows how many more.
P.S. your mail-followup-to header was broken, too.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Ingo Juergensmann 2004-02-21, 4:33 am |
| On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 06:06:14PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 03:04:39PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> Of all the things one could _announce_ to over 3,500 people who are watching
> debian-devel-_announce_, you couldn't think of anything other than this
> _non-announcement_. That's just appalling as far as I am concerned.
It is an announcement: By the end of the month the m68k might be forced to
get dropped by Mr. Troup. I think the drop of an arch from Debian is worth
an announcement, isn't it?
> I will discuss with my fellow listmasters whether we should hold all further
> mails from you to -devel-announce after such an abuse of this announcement
> list, and in fact whether all further posts should be moderated in a more
> standard manner, because it's apparent that we have at least two people who
> don't seem to understand the list's description and God knows how many more.
When you don't have any other problems to care about feel free.
It will just be another sign of how "free" Debian is in reality...
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Santiago Vila 2004-02-21, 4:33 am |
| On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Josip Rodin wrote:
> I will discuss with my fellow listmasters whether we should hold all further
> mails from you to -devel-announce after such an abuse of this announcement
> list, and in fact whether all further posts should be moderated in a more
> standard manner, because it's apparent that we have at least two people who
> don't seem to understand the list's description and God knows how many more.
Funny. Do you really care about list abuse? Then please fix Bug #228228,
which is the cause for nearly HALF of the spam we receive.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Josip Rodin 2004-02-21, 4:33 am |
| On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 06:22:07PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>
> It is an announcement: By the end of the month the m68k might be forced to
> get dropped by Mr. Troup.
Yeah, right. 1) your mail was not an announcement 2) that statement as such
is not an announcement 3) I have very little reason to believe that statement.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Josip Rodin 2004-02-21, 4:33 am |
| On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 06:42:32PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> Funny. Do you really care about list abuse? Then please fix Bug #228228,
> which is the cause for nearly HALF of the spam we receive.
You're mixing two different sorts of problems, and plus throwing in ad
hominem attacks. That's guaranteed to get you listened to, definitely. :P
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Matthias Urlichs 2004-02-21, 4:33 am |
| Hi, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> It is an announcement: By the end of the month the m68k might be forced to
> get dropped by Mr. Troup. I think the drop of an arch from Debian is worth
> an announcement, isn't it?
With all due respect, Ingo: announcing _that_ was a rather small part of
your email, it's by no means assured that this will in fact happen, and
there are other people on the m68k list who might conceivably have a say
about this, whom you didn't talk to before you wrote that -- I just
checked the m68k-build mailing list.
For the record, I can sort-of understand the point of both sides.
WRT the actual problem with akire (which, as most people probably don't
know, is sitting in my basement at the moment): I'm going to ask for an
unmetered static IP after my vacation (i.e., in one week).
--
Matthias Urlichs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Stephen Frost 2004-02-21, 4:33 am |
| * Ingo Juergensmann (ij@2004.bluespice.org) wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 06:06:14PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
>
> It is an announcement: By the end of the month the m68k might be forced to
> get dropped by Mr. Troup. I think the drop of an arch from Debian is worth
> an announcement, isn't it?
Try to think a little less of yourself. You are hardly the sole owner
of m68k machines. A formal announcement of an architecture drop would
be something worthwhile to post to d-d-a. What you did is not that, and
the idea that you could even construe it as that is deeply concerning.
>
> When you don't have any other problems to care about feel free.
> It will just be another sign of how "free" Debian is in reality...
Even in a free organization action has to be taken when things are
abused lest those abuses be allowed to detract from the rest and the
project as a whole.
Stephen
| |
| Ingo Juergensmann 2004-02-21, 4:33 am |
| On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 06:45:39PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> With all due respect, Ingo: announcing _that_ was a rather small part of
> your email, it's by no means assured that this will in fact happen, and
> there are other people on the m68k list who might conceivably have a say
> about this, whom you didn't talk to before you wrote that -- I just
> checked the m68k-build mailing list.
Well, withdrawing 3 or 4 060 buildds will put m68k in a really bad shape for
sure. You'll need 8-10 Macs to compensate this. Good luck for doing so. ;)
> For the record, I can sort-of understand the point of both sides.
> WRT the actual problem with akire (which, as most people probably don't
> know, is sitting in my basement at the moment): I'm going to ask for an
> unmetered static IP after my vacation (i.e., in one week).
That would make it easier, of course.
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Ingo Juergensmann 2004-02-21, 5:33 am |
| >> Well, withdrawing 3 or 4 060 buildds will put m68k in a really bad shape for
> If no one else comes up with some m68k machines then perhaps it will be
> dropped, that's the way it works though. Personally, I've got a couple
> m68k machines not doing anything atm that I'd probably be willing to
> offer. I seriously doubt I'm alone either.
Feel free, go ahead, have fun.
--
Ciao... // "Such giants are these! Great shoulders bear
Ingo \X/ so many. I stand among them." (D. Haynie)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Stephen Frost 2004-02-21, 5:33 am |
| * Ingo Juergensmann (ij@2004.bluespice.org) wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 06:45:39PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
> Well, withdrawing 3 or 4 060 buildds will put m68k in a really bad shape for
> sure. You'll need 8-10 Macs to compensate this. Good luck for doing so. ;)
If no one else comes up with some m68k machines then perhaps it will be
dropped, that's the way it works though. Personally, I've got a couple
m68k machines not doing anything atm that I'd probably be willing to
offer. I seriously doubt I'm alone either.
Stephen
| |
| Branden Robinson 2004-02-21, 5:33 am |
| On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 12:55:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 03:04:39PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> ...a mail that appeared via debian-devel-announce.
>
> How odd. That's a developers only list and Ingo's no developer. Who was
> it signed by?
>
> [-- PGP output follows (current time: Sun Feb 22 00:49:39 2004) --]
> gpg: Signature made Sun Feb 22 00:04:39 2004 EST using DSA key ID 7F4E0E11
> gpg: Good signature from "Bastian Blank <bastianb@gmx.de>"
> gpg: aka "Bastian Blank <waldi_@gmx.de>"
> ...
>
> Ahh. From the DMUP:
>
> ] Examples of what we consider net abuse:
> ] * Forged headers and / or Addresses
> ]
> ] Forging headers or messages means sending mail such that its origin
> ] appears to be another user or machine, or a non-existent machine.
>
> ] * Penalties
> ] If someone violates the rules set in this document he will be subjected
> ] to a penalty. The penalty depends on the number of previous violations
> ] and the offense involved.
> ]
> ] 1. First offense
> ] 1. The accounts of the offender will be suspended and access
> ] will not be available.
>
> Complaints are completely off topic for announcement lists. WTF were you
> thinking?
Whew. Thank God we don't have to address the actual contents of Ingo's
mail!
--
G. Branden Robinson | I had thought very carefully about
Debian GNU/Linux | committing hara-kiri over this, but
branden@debian.org | I overslept this morning.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Toshio Yamaguchi
| |
| Stephen Frost 2004-02-21, 6:33 am |
| * Branden Robinson (branden@debian.org) wrote:
>
> Whew. Thank God we don't have to address the actual contents of Ingo's
> mail!
It's pretty obvious there's nothing to address.
Stephen
| |
| Ingo Saitz 2004-02-21, 7:34 am |
| On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 12:55:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Ahh. From the DMUP:
>
> ] Examples of what we consider net abuse:
> ] * Forged headers and / or Addresses
> ]
> ] Forging headers or messages means sending mail such that its origin
> ] appears to be another user or machine, or a non-existent machine.
You seem to be missing something here (one paragraph down in this
example):
] However, in either case, if prior permission has been granted to you by
] the other user or the administrators of the other machine, then there is
] no problem, and of course "null" reverse paths can be used as defined in
] the relevant RFCs.
Ingo
--
mail: .signature: No such file or directory
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| David B Harris 2004-02-21, 8:33 am |
| On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 14:02:22 -0500
Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Whew. Thank God we don't have to address the actual contents of Ingo's
> mail!
You mean the contents of "I asked James for access, but he wanted me to
abide by the [currently reasonable] security policy, and I don't want
to, and James won't let me have access without it, so James is evil"?
Feel free to "address" them.
In a private followup, Ingo suggested that a big concern was James' lack
of communication on the matter, but the quoted "Ingo, I said
non-negotiable and I meant it. Either you agree to this, or you don't
get any sort of access to ftp-master, period." is pretty clear.
Feel free to "address" that as well.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Ingo Juergensmann 2004-02-21, 8:33 am |
| David B Harris said:
> You mean the contents of "I asked James for access, but he wanted me to
> abide by the [currently reasonable] security policy, and I don't want
> to, and James won't let me have access without it, so James is evil"?
> Feel free to "address" them.
I didn't criticized the security policy itself. That was more than overdue.
Again, Mr. Troup rejected my security concerns about having the passwords in
cleartext on buildd.d.o in failed build logs.
So far to security.
> In a private followup, Ingo suggested that a big concern was James' lack
> of communication on the matter, but the quoted "Ingo, I said
> non-negotiable and I meant it. Either you agree to this, or you don't
> get any sort of access to ftp-master, period." is pretty clear.
> Feel free to "address" that as well.
It's not about agreeing to that specific policy, but about how that got
communicated and how future cooperation with Mr. Troup should look like. When
he is not willing to cooperate with others (i.e. me, having me in ignore and
mailfilters), then I feel that it's not worth to agree to that policy because
the next problem will come sooner or later.
There's a problem (with Mr. Troup) and it needs to get addressed properly.
--
Ciao... // "Such giants are these! Great shoulders bear
Ingo \X/ so many. I stand among them." (D. Haynie)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Matt Zimmerman 2004-02-21, 8:33 am |
| On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 03:04:39PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> [ This is a translated mail to the DPL. German speaking developers can
> find the original text below. See below as well for what happened so far. ]
I see absolutely no reason for this to be sent to debian-devel-announce; in
fact I see it as an abuse of that list to air your grievances.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| David B Harris 2004-02-21, 9:33 am |
| On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:25:48 +0100 (CET)
"Ingo Juergensmann" <ij@2004.bluespice.org> wrote:
>
> It's not about agreeing to that specific policy, but about how that got
> communicated and how future cooperation with Mr. Troup should look like. When
> he is not willing to cooperate with others (i.e. me, having me in ignore and
> mailfilters), then I feel that it's not worth to agree to that policy because
> the next problem will come sooner or later.
> There's a problem (with Mr. Troup) and it needs to get addressed properly.
I believe James' communication on the matter was more than clear. "Ingo,
I said non-negotiable and I meant it." That was obviously a direct reply
to yourself.
As for communication being initiated by a third party on James' request,
I see no fault in that either. If I ever have serious business to
discuss with somebody I've had friction with, I make an effort to ensure
such past friction won't have any effect on the proceedings. In some
cases that means *everything* being channelled through a third party, in
some cases it means asking a third party to "feel out" the second part
(as you said James had done).
If James finds IRC conversations too stressful and/or time-consuming or
hell, just plain old unpleasant, I also have no objection to putting
certain people on /ignore. The mail filter he's using (at least
according to your post) simply assigns a lower priority to your own
messages. That's rather scarce of details, and I think that without
understanding the entire mail system, it's negligent to assume that it
results in a serious change in one's ability to contact him.
Do you have any better examples, maybe? Admittedly I assumed that you
posted the best supporting evidence of your complaint to d-d-a, but that
might not be a valid assumption.
P.S.: I don't know James, and I'm not defending him. I am, however,
defending *specific examples* of *specific action*. Please understand
that if there's an honest problem, my mind is open to the possibility,
but since I know neither you nor him I can only judge based on what
examples are provided.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2004-02-21, 10:33 am |
| David B Harris <dbharris@eelf.ddts.net> writes:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:25:48 +0100 (CET)
> "Ingo Juergensmann" <ij@2004.bluespice.org> wrote:
To say it in different words. Ingo can agree to it but not accept it
without some further understandings. Reasons being the communication
blackout and general implementation of the policy.
Some buildds have gotten access in days (was 2 the minimum?) while
Ingo (and me too) has been left hanging without.
[color=blue]
>
> I believe James' communication on the matter was more than clear. "Ingo,
> I said non-negotiable and I meant it." That was obviously a direct reply
> to yourself.
How about James
- creates the missing user/pass pairs for the buildds (point a of
Ingos concerns)
- agrees to removes the mail filter (concern b)
This could be limited to the, to be created, buildd-admin
mailinglist where changes and news concerning buildd should then
be announced prior to implementation when possible.
- agrees to respond to the then unfiltered mails from ij concerning
buildd/wanna-build operations in a timely manner (concern c)
- creates a new set of user/pass pairs for every buildd working before
the compromise (concern d). The existing user/pass keys are
compromised (they appear(ed) in log on buildd.debian.org) and any
security measure is useless without changing them.
And Ingo accepts the new policy.
Does that sound unreasonable?
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Manoj Srivastava 2004-02-21, 11:33 am |
| On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:39:44 -0500, David B Harris <dbharris@eelf.ddts.net> said:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 14:02:22 -0500
> Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
> You mean the contents of "I asked James for access, but he wanted me
> to abide by the [currently reasonable] security policy, and I don't
> want to, and James won't let me have access without it, so James is
> evil"?
> Feel free to "address" them.
> In a private followup, Ingo suggested that a big concern was James'
> lack of communication on the matter, but the quoted "Ingo, I said
> non-negotiable and I meant it. Either you agree to this, or you
> don't get any sort of access to ftp-master, period." is pretty
> clear.
> Feel free to "address" that as well.
Hear, Hear.
manoj
--
"I'm in Pittsburgh. Why am I here?" Harold Urey, Nobel Laureate
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Manoj Srivastava 2004-02-21, 11:33 am |
| On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:23:09 +0100, Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> said:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
[color=blue]
[color=blue]
[color=blue]
[color=blue]
> [...]
> I assume Bastian received the mail from Ingo with the pledge to sign
> it and bounce it to d-d-a, which is completely different.
Different, how? Why was the email not clearly marked as coming
from Bastian, with the contents: I got this from Ingo with a request
to bounce to devel? (That is overlooking the fact that this was a
gross abuse of a genral announce list, which, as a DD, bastion should
have known better).
> Bouncing/forwarding e-mail from non-DDs to d-d-a is ok.
Not unless the contents are fit to be on d-d-a, which was not
the case here, and if and only if the header properly attribute the
DD from whom the message is supposed to be coming from.
> The paragraph you quoted would match if _Bastian_ wrote the mail and
> made it appear to be sent by Ingo.
Looking at the headers of the message, sounds more like he
colluded with ingo to bypass the restrictions of d-d-a. Which does
not seem to be better.
manoj
--
If you wants to get elected president, you'se got to think up some
memoraboble homily so's school kids can be pestered into memorizin'
it, even if they don't know what it means. Walt Kelly, "The Pogo
Party"
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Pascal Hakim 2004-02-21, 11:33 am |
| On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 06:15:33PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Looking at the headers of the message, sounds more like he
> colluded with ingo to bypass the restrictions of d-d-a. Which does
> not seem to be better.
>
It's standard procedure for non-DD to get someone with a key in the
keyring to sign their message so that it will go through
debian-devel-announce. Think of it as a form of sponsorship, for
mailing lists instead of packages.
Cheers,
Pasc
--
Pascal Hakim +61 4 0341 1672
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| David B Harris 2004-02-21, 12:33 pm |
| On 22 Feb 2004 01:07:24 +0100
Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>
> To say it in different words. Ingo can agree to it but not accept it
> without some further understandings. Reasons being the communication
> blackout and general implementation of the policy.
As I explained to Ingo when he said he required notification prior to
any policy change, it is simply *not* reasonable to expect such
unconditionally. As a paid systems administrator, I'll make an effort to
ensure a smooth transition to any new policy, but sometimes it must be
done at the drop of a hat without any warning - and users are left to
catch up. It happens, it's unavoidable, and it's part of a good system
administrator's job.
(That was the only requirement Ingo stated, and he dropped the point
after I said what I said above.)
Furthermore, what does it matter if Ingo gets told about a policy change
after it's been put in place? I mean, sure, it'd be nice to be kept in
the loop, but it's hardly required. Maybe in theory we should all be
tracking each package we Depend: on very carefully, but in practice I
bet that most people (like myself) just care when something breaks. And
then we fix the breakage, and it's no big deal, and we move on.
> Some buildds have gotten access in days (was 2 the minimum?) while
> Ingo (and me too) has been left hanging without.
I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion. Unless you want the
discussion to be about your and Ingo's suitability for the role? I'm not
interested in that, so if you are and you say as much I'll just ignore
that portion of any followup.
>
> How about James
>
> - creates the missing user/pass pairs for the buildds (point a of
> Ingos concerns)
> - agrees to removes the mail filter (concern b)
> This could be limited to the, to be created, buildd-admin
> mailinglist where changes and news concerning buildd should then
> be announced prior to implementation when possible.
> - agrees to respond to the then unfiltered mails from ij concerning
> buildd/wanna-build operations in a timely manner (concern c)
> - creates a new set of user/pass pairs for every buildd working before
> the compromise (concern d). The existing user/pass keys are
> compromised (they appear(ed) in log on buildd.debian.org) and any
> security measure is useless without changing them.
>
> And Ingo accepts the new policy.
>
> Does that sound unreasonable?
Well, two of the points have nothing to do with communcation. If you'd
like to bring them up as seperate issues, please respond to
<20040221153944.6e67d555.dbharris@eelf.ddts.net> wherein I briefly
outlined the issues presented.
For the other two, basically a) remove the mail fitler, and b) promise
to respond to things in a timely manner. Well, a) isn't a filter, it's a
scoring mechanism, and it's silly to ask for its removal unless you know
what it does. Do you have a copy of those recipes/scripts? If so, feel
free to provide them as a basis for discussion.
As for b), I'll refer to tbm's
<20040220163532.GC1629@deprecation.cyrius.com>. I'd also add "there are
some things more important than m68k buildds". If you'd like to outline
the timeframe for the specific conversation quoted in ij's email, feel
free. Until that information is made available it's impossible to judge
whether the turnaround time has been good or not.
So does what you said sound reasonable? Taken entirely out of context,
yes. Taken with context, no. Not to mention portions of it being
inaccurate.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Manoj Srivastava 2004-02-21, 1:33 pm |
| On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:44:41 +1100, Pascal Hakim <pasc@debian.org> said:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 06:15:33PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[color=blue]
> It's standard procedure for non-DD to get someone with a key in the
> keyring to sign their message so that it will go through
> debian-devel-announce. Think of it as a form of sponsorship, for
> mailing lists instead of packages.
I would expect to see the developers name on the headers of
the message, then. It should not appear to come from the non-dd.
There is also the issue of making an end run around the spirit
of the rule -- this is a developer only list. Why is that so hard to
understand?
manoj
--
I am two with nature. Woody Allen
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Josip Rodin 2004-02-21, 1:33 pm |
| On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 07:53:19PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I would expect to see the developers name on the headers of
> the message, then. It should not appear to come from the non-dd.
Well, as much as I'd like to agree with you on that, if we make a what seems
to be a valid parallel with sponsored uploads, we don't require people to
put their name in Changed-By or Maintainer or other fields, only that they
check the package. They can be traced through the signature, like in this
case.
I can't say it's much different in effect from a sponsored upload, either --
everyone who has the package will install the sponsored version
automatically in an upgrade, similarly to how everyone who's subscribed to
the list will see the sponsored post automatically when they read the
mailbox containing it...
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Anthony Towns 2004-02-21, 2:33 pm |
| On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 03:52:43AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> I can't say it's much different in effect from a sponsored upload, either --
It's accepted practice for people to do sponsored uploads, and the
requirements for the sponsor are fairly clear: check over the package
in detail, build it yourself, and upload it with the Maintainer: field
in the .deb set to the sponsee.
There's no corresponding accepted practice for "sponsored posts" to d-d-a
ttbomk, and I certainly can't find any examples of it in the last twelve
months. There's also no reason for it: you don't have to "maintain" a post
to a mailing list, so the rationale that you don't have time to support the
post later doesn't hold up.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Manoj Srivastava 2004-02-21, 3:33 pm |
| On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 03:52:43 +0100, Josip Rodin <joy@srce.hr> said:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 07:53:19PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[color=blue]
> Well, as much as I'd like to agree with you on that, if we make a
> what seems to be a valid parallel with sponsored uploads, we don't
> require people to put their name in Changed-By or Maintainer or
> other fields, only that they check the package. They can be traced
> through the signature, like in this case.
There is a reason sponsored uploads are done -- it allows
people to get experience developing packages, and helps them get a
head start in the NM process. It gets software into Debian that would
not otherwise get in.
I fail to see how getting an inappropriate message on to d-d-a
qualifies -- unless you compare it to sponsoring a trojan to by pass
the normal safeguards we have about unrestricted uploads into the
archive.
manoj
--
Gee, I feel kind of LIGHT in the head now, knowing I can't make my
satellite dish PAYMENTS!
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Pascal Hakim 2004-02-21, 4:33 pm |
| On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 10:46:22PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> There is a reason sponsored uploads are done -- it allows
> people to get experience developing packages, and helps them get a
> head start in the NM process. It gets software into Debian that would
> not otherwise get in.
>
> I fail to see how getting an inappropriate message on to d-d-a
> qualifies -- unless you compare it to sponsoring a trojan to by pass
> the normal safeguards we have about unrestricted uploads into the
> archive.
Are you saying that there is a never a reason for someone not
in the keyring to post a message to d-d-a? Or that the message which
started this thread didn't belong on d-d-a?
Josip and I are talking about the general case of a non-DD
posting to d-d-a, and not a specific email. In this same way that you
would sponsor packages for someone in the NM process, you should be
willing to sponsor a message to d-d-a if it is justified.
Pasc
--
Pascal Hakim +61 4 0341 1672
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Manoj Srivastava 2004-02-21, 6:33 pm |
| On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:33:18 +1100, Pascal Hakim <pasc@redellipse.net> said:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 10:46:22PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[color=blue]
> Are you saying that there is a never a reason for someone not
> in the keyring to post a message to d-d-a? Or that the message which
> started this thread didn't belong on d-d-a?
Have a reason? Oh, I am sure lots of people have reasons to
post to d-d-a -- I imagine that there are lots and lots of spammers
who have reason to post to d-d-a. The question is, does one give
unlimited reigh to anyone who may have reson to post to d-d-a?
The appropriateness of the content is still the responsibility
of the person signing the email. Apart from my duties as project
secretary, I have never posted to d-d-a -- and I would not dream of
sending messages there that are merely of interest to me (and that
includes disputes with other developers).
> Josip and I are talking about the general case of a non-DD
> posting to d-d-a, and not a specific email. In this same way that
> you would sponsor packages for someone in the NM process, you should
> be willing to sponsor a message to d-d-a if it is justified.
If I ever sponsor such a message, just like I would rebuild
and test a package myself, I would take the content of the
message, and take responsibility for the contents, and have
my name in the headers -- giving full attribution to the original
author in the body.
manoj
--
Date: 27 Apr 90 14:55:59 GMT From: merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal
Schwartz) $_ = "cker,rl haer PeanothJust "; s/(.{5})$/(print$1),""/e
while length
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Andreas Metzler 2004-02-21, 7:33 pm |
| Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:23:09 +0100, Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> said:
[color=blue]
[color=blue]
[color=blue]
[color=blue]
[color=blue]
[color=blue]
> Different, how?
Nobody is "forging". It _is_ a mail by Ingo, Bastian just approved it.
> Why was the email not clearly marked as coming
> from Bastian, with the contents: I got this from Ingo with a request
> to bounce to devel? (That is overlooking the fact that this was a
> gross abuse of a genral announce list, which, as a DD, bastion should
> have known better).
[color=blue]
> Not unless the contents are fit to be on d-d-a,
[...]
I never claimed this to be case and I quite clearly said that in my
mail.
[color=blue]
> Looking at the headers of the message, sounds more like he
> colluded with ingo to bypass the restrictions of d-d-a. Which does
> not seem to be better.
Does not seem to be consensus. For violating the DMUP one's account
will be suspended, approving an o-t-posting (or sending one) does not
have this price-tag.
cu andreas, "forging e-mail" by sending with @debian.org from a
non-debian machine
--
Hey, da ist ein Ballonautomat auf der Toilette!
Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest unstable _tin_
http://www.logic.univie.ac.at/~amet...n/tin-snapshot/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Ingo Juergensmann 2004-02-21, 11:33 pm |
| On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 08:28:14PM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> As I explained to Ingo when he said he required notification prior to
> any policy change, it is simply *not* reasonable to expect such
> unconditionally. As a paid systems administrator, I'll make an effort to
> ensure a smooth transition to any new policy, but sometimes it must be
> done at the drop of a hat without any warning - and users are left to
> catch up. It happens, it's unavoidable, and it's part of a good system
> administrator's job.
> (That was the only requirement Ingo stated, and he dropped the point
> after I said what I said above.)
I dropped it because I see no sense in always argueing with "Debian is not a
business, only voluntary work and therefore can't be forced".
When a new policy needs to bet put up immediatedly without prior
announcement, then this needs to be done. But where was the public
announcement of that changed policy afterwards? And I don't saw any "Yes, I
agree to that new policy" mails from other buildd admins as well. So, I
can't follow the argument that all others have agreed to the policy -
especially when they even don't know that a new policy exists.
Raise your hands, buildd admins, who knew of the changed policy before the
last days?
> Furthermore, what does it matter if Ingo gets told about a policy change
> after it's been put in place? I mean, sure, it'd be nice to be kept in
> the loop, but it's hardly required. Maybe in theory we should all be
Usually, when someone has a contract with you, he can't change the rules of
that contract afterwards without your given permission for it. If he does,
the contract is either invalid or the old contract still is valid.
> tracking each package we Depend: on very carefully, but in practice I
> bet that most people (like myself) just care when something breaks. And
> then we fix the breakage, and it's no big deal, and we move on.
Yes, the buildd was broken (non-functional), I tried to contact the
"Maintainer", waited a long term, nothing happened, I fixed it.
> I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion. Unless you want the
> discussion to be about your and Ingo's suitability for the role? I'm not
> interested in that, so if you are and you say as much I'll just ignore
> that portion of any followup.
It's part of the very selective cognition of Mr. Troup and the resulting
problems thereof.
If Mr. Troup would have done his work, then the buildd would have added in a
timely manner. Obviously it is possible for Mr. Troup to add new buildds
within a day. Why does it last for other buildds some weeks to get added?
Apparently it is a matter of who is requesting the addition of new buildds.
That's part of "serious problems with Mr. Troup".
> For the other two, basically a) remove the mail fitler, and b) promise
> to respond to things in a timely manner. Well, a) isn't a filter, it's a
> scoring mechanism, and it's silly to ask for its removal unless you know
> what it does. Do you have a copy of those recipes/scripts? If so, feel
> free to provide them as a basis for discussion.
Acting as "the guy who adds buildds to the ACLs" is a role position. Role
positions shouldn't have applied filters to communication based on personal
dis-/likes.
Surely, Mr. Troup can filter whatever private communication he likes, but
when he's asked as a role keeper, that isn't appropriate anymore.
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Andreas Barth 2004-02-22, 12:33 am |
| * Manoj Srivastava (srivasta@debian.org) [040222 03:25]:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:44:41 +1100, Pascal Hakim <pasc@debian.org> said:
[color=blue]
> I would expect to see the developers name on the headers of
> the message, then. It should not appear to come from the non-dd.
Why? The Developer does also not add itself to the uploaders either
usually.
> There is also the issue of making an end run around the spirit
> of the rule -- this is a developer only list. Why is that so hard to
> understand?
I disagree. It's a moderated list, moderated by all DDs together.
No, I think _this_ part of sending the announcement to d-d-a was ok.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Steve McIntyre 2004-02-22, 1:33 am |
| Matthias Urlichs write:
>
>WRT the actual problem with akire (which, as most people probably don't
>know, is sitting in my basement at the moment): I'm going to ask for an
>unmetered static IP after my vacation (i.e., in one week).
If it helps, I've got some spare static IPs on my network, and I'm
willing to help with a buildd. Full local mirror too...
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"...In the UNIX world, people tend to interpret `non-technical user'
as meaning someone who's only ever written one device driver." -- Daniel Pead
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Josip Rodin 2004-02-22, 4:33 am |
| On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 04:33:18PM +1100, Pascal Hakim wrote:
> Josip and I are talking about the general case of a non-DD
> posting to d-d-a, and not a specific email.
Yes, my comments were of generic nature regarding sponsoring mails. Note
that I haven't replied to Manoj saying that it's against the spirit of the
rule or Anthony saying there is no precedent and that there is no need for
maintenance like in the case of sponsored packages. Those are all valid
points.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| David B Harris 2004-02-22, 5:33 am |
| I would like to respond to this message, but to do so honestly and
effectively I'd need to say things which might enrage, no matter how
true.
So I'm going to refrain.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:17:17 +0100
Ingo Juergensmann <ij@2004.bluespice.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 08:28:14PM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
>
>
> I dropped it because I see no sense in always argueing with "Debian is not a
> business, only voluntary work and therefore can't be forced".
> When a new policy needs to bet put up immediatedly without prior
> announcement, then this needs to be done. But where was the public
> announcement of that changed policy afterwards? And I don't saw any "Yes, I
> agree to that new policy" mails from other buildd admins as well. So, I
> can't follow the argument that all others have agreed to the policy -
> especially when they even don't know that a new policy exists.
> Raise your hands, buildd admins, who knew of the changed policy before the
> last days?
>
>
> Usually, when someone has a contract with you, he can't change the rules of
> that contract afterwards without your given permission for it. If he does,
> the contract is either invalid or the old contract still is valid.
>
>
> Yes, the buildd was broken (non-functional), I tried to contact the
> "Maintainer", waited a long term, nothing happened, I fixed it.
>
>
> It's part of the very selective cognition of Mr. Troup and the resulting
> problems thereof.
> If Mr. Troup would have done his work, then the buildd would have added in a
> timely manner. Obviously it is possible for Mr. Troup to add new buildds
> within a day. Why does it last for other buildds some weeks to get added?
> Apparently it is a matter of who is requesting the addition of new buildds.
> That's part of "serious problems with Mr. Troup".
>
>
> Acting as "the guy who adds buildds to the ACLs" is a role position. Role
> positions shouldn't have applied filters to communication based on personal
> dis-/likes.
> Surely, Mr. Troup can filter whatever private communication he likes, but
> when he's asked as a role keeper, that isn't appropriate anymore.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Wouter Verhelst 2004-02-22, 6:33 am |
| On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 06:22:07PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 06:06:14PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
>
> It is an announcement: By the end of the month the m68k might be forced to
> get dropped by Mr. Troup. I think the drop of an arch from Debian is worth
> an announcement, isn't it?
This was not, in any way, an announcement of that fact. If you do indeed
choose to stop contributing to Debian/m68k, then we will thank you for
your past collaboration and will move on without you, however hard that
may be at first. I, personally, would not welcome this and in fact
deeply regret it if that would happen, but that's a different matter
entirely.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation."
"So is my neck, stop it anyway!"
-- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.
| |
| Chris Cheney 2004-02-22, 10:33 am |
| On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 01:26:50PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Ingo Juergensmann (ij@2004.bluespice.org) wrote:
>
> If no one else comes up with some m68k machines then perhaps it will be
> dropped, that's the way it works though. Personally, I've got a couple
> m68k machines not doing anything atm that I'd probably be willing to
> offer. I seriously doubt I'm alone either.
Of course have fun getting James to add you to w-b.  Since you came
out against IJ/Goswin you shouldn't have much trouble with that.
Chris
| |
| Adam Heath 2004-02-22, 11:33 am |
| On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, David B Harris wrote:
> I would like to respond to this message, but to do so honestly and
> effectively I'd need to say things which might enrage, no matter how
> true.
>
> So I'm going to refrain.
So instead you send this. This makes you no better than Ingo.
It would have been far to just not say anything.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| David B Harris 2004-02-22, 11:33 am |
| On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:32:02 -0600 (CST)
Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org> wrote:
>
> So instead you send this. This makes you no better than Ingo.
>
> It would have been far to just not say anything.
I didn't want a lack of reply to be taken as acquiescence.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Stephen Frost 2004-02-22, 2:33 pm |
| * Chris Cheney (ccheney@cheney.cx) wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 01:26:50PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> Of course have fun getting James to add you to w-b. Since you came
> out against IJ/Goswin you shouldn't have much trouble with that.
Uh-huh, so let's point out what the *reality* is: I'm unlikely to have a
problem since I'm likely to agree to the policies. IJ/Goswin havn't got
anything to do with that except that apparently IJ wasn't willing to
agree to the policies and Goswin's defending him to some extent (not
that there's much point to that).
Stephen
| |
| Jaakko Niemi 2004-02-22, 9:33 pm |
| On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> I disagree. It's a moderated list, moderated by all DDs together.
>
> No, I think _this_ part of sending the announcement to d-d-a was ok.
Announcement of _WHAT_? That Ingo is having communication problems?
The post was offtopic for that medium, no matter what way
you put it. If someone wants communications recorded, there
is documented way to do that.
--j
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2004-02-23, 3:34 am |
| Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Chris Cheney (ccheney@cheney.cx) wrote:
>
> Uh-huh, so let's point out what the *reality* is: I'm unlikely to have a
> problem since I'm likely to agree to the policies. IJ/Goswin havn't got
> anything to do with that except that apparently IJ wasn't willing to
> agree to the policies and Goswin's defending him to some extent (not
> that there's much point to that).
>
> Stephen
The policy thing is just the end of the road. Thats a very recent
thing and not the reason getting w-b or incoming access took so
long. Its the reason why existing access was suspended and no further
access will be given now, thats all (and James right).
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Matthias Urlichs 2004-02-28, 7:33 am |
| Hi, Stephen Frost wrote:
> IJ wasn't willing to
> agree to the policies
Disregarding the communication problems between Ingo and James:
akire doesn't have a free-beer static IP address at the moment, thus
Ingo's agreement wouldn't have changed anything.
--
Matthias Urlichs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|