Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Call for moderation and mediation: debian-live vs. debian-live-ng"):
> Daniel's relationship with the project have not been good
This is of course very relevant background. (I myself have been
strongly critical of some things Daniel has done.)
However, calling something "foo-ng" without the consent of the author
and present maintainer of "foo" is an extremely hostile act.[1] (And
that doesn't depend on whether the maintainer of "foo" is a full DD or
what.) It is also completely unnecessary in almost all cases.
I think in this case that choice of name was gratuitously aggressive,
and inexcusable. Iain says that this choice of name wasn't intended
that way. Perhaps so. But when Iain and Neil were asked to please
choose a different name, their response to Daniel's very reasonable
request was to dig their heels in rather than seek accomodation.
Daniel's reaction to being rebuffed is unfortunate. Maybe someone
other than Daniel would have had a more measured reaction. But I
think what was done was quite a severe provocation.
For once, Daniel is not in the wrong.
Ian.
[1] Consider what our collective response would be to an external
group to setting up a project they are calling "Debian-NG". We would
be sending in our lawyers to nuke the site from orbit.
|
|
