Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Call for moderation and mediation: debian-live vs. debian-live-ng

On 2015, നവംബർ 11 8:46:15 PM IST, Joachim Breitner <nomeata@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Am Mittwoch, den 11.11.2015, 14:19 +0100 schrieb Miriam Ruiz:
>> Just for the record, I don't feel myself capable of acting a
>> moderator able to help in this situation, particularly when it seems
>> that what's essentially asked for is for someone to talk with Daniel
>> and convince him not to get mad and to not make a fuss out of it, and
>> to deal with it in a civilized way. Or maybe I'm wrong, but the
>> impression I already have about the situation, being an outsider and
>> having made up my opinion mostly from what I've seen, heard or read
>> throughout the years, is that there is nothing to negotiate or
>> moderate here, the decision is taken -for the sensible reasons that
>> have already been explained, I'm not complaining about that or
>> anything- and the point is essentially trying to convince Daniel et
>> al. not to get angry about how things are being done. Am I wrong?
>it might be part of what I am hoping for, but not everything.
>There are a few people out there (and maybe in here as well) who see
>(parts of) this story and draw conclusions about how Debian treats
>contributors. Conclusions that I hope are in general false, and
>conclusions that I’d not like to pervade our image.
>So, a bit more concretely, here are thinks that I such a neutral report
>could state. (Read every line with an “if deemed appropriate by the
>mediator” – I certainly do not know enough about the issue to make any
>such call, and therefore some of these are deliberately contradictory)
> * Outline the history of events that led to this outcome.
> * Allow Daniel to not lose his face. This might involve
>   - acknowledging his work, and thanking for it
>   - apologize to him, if he was treated wrong on a social level
>   - outline a way forward to collaborate, or at least to allow
>     the projects to exist side-by-side in a friendly manner
> * Explain why, despite the public perception, nobody has been wronged,
>   neither technically and socially.
> * Explain that “the project” did the technical correct thing, but did
>   it wrong on a social level, and state that this was a mistake, and
>   we are all humans, and the project in general does not approve such
>   behaviour.
>A bit more profanely, one could say that we have a slight PR problem,
>and PR problems should better be handled actively.

I agree. There has to be a public statement and this is a good starting point.


Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index