On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 08:03:37AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ron <ron@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 08:19:22PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Anthony Towns <aj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >>> As far as I can see you have expressed an opinion on the topic, namely
> >>> that you disagree with Debian banning Linus from Debian events because
> >>> of his behaviour in fora outside of Debian's control.
>
> >>> Is that not accurate?
>
> >> Well, I don't believe anyone proposed doing that. (That isn't, for
> >> instance, what Ian was saying at the start of this whole thing.)
>
> > He said:
>
> > "Debian should make a public statement that Linus will not be welcome
> > at Debian events in future."
>
> > That seems pretty unambiguous to me. Does asking someone questions
> > about things that happened outside Debian somehow bring those things
> > under "Debian's control"?
>
> Ian's original message proposed doing this specifically due to Linus's
> statements about the FSF during the Q&A, I believe. In other words, it
> was about behavior in a venue that we control.
It was a direct, and directly relevant answer, with a long and detailed
and rational explanation, to a question "we" directly asked him.
A question that directly suggested we don't think it's right for him to
be allowed to choose the terms under which he distributes his own work.
Anyone reasonably familiar with the history could be reasonably expected
to know what cans of worms that would reopen, and we invited him to open
it again for us. It's hard to see how honestly and patiently answering
that would amount to "abuse of our venue" on his part.
> I don't think anyone has
> proposed banning him because of behavior on the LKML. (And, to reiterate,
> I don't think he should be banned due to those statements during the Q&A
> either, but I think it's worth pointing out that Ian also respected the
> line that you and AJ are pointing out and was not on the side of that line
> that you seem to think he was.)
Right, I don't personally think that asking the question crossed the
line either, but it certainly blurred it to knowingly invite things
some people might not want to hear into our space.
Where I think Ian with great irony boldly crossed his own line was when
he said:
"As part of that extended tirade he accused them of lying, in so many
words. That is a very serious accusation which he didn't really back
up."
That sounds to me a lot like Ian is accusing him of lying. Which is a
very serious accusation that he didn't really back up.
What action should we take to "ensure there is no repetition and set a
good example for others" in this case where one of our own is guilty
of the behaviour we deplore?
It certainly appears to have caused significant damage in venues that
we control.
Linus gave a lot of detail, some of which was clearly still painful to
him, to explain the history of what occurred. Nobody asked him to
explain it in further detail, though the mic was open and they plainly
had the chance. I'm sure the door is still open if somebody really
wants to learn even more painful and undeniable facts about it ...
But I suspect he personally would much rather never talk about this
subject again, anywhere, if he doesn't have to, than anybody here
might hope he doesn't.
Ron
--
Please respect the privacy of this mailing list. Some posts may be declassified
3 years after posting as per http://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002
Archive: file://master.debian.org/~debian/archive/debian-private/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the web form at <http://db.debian.org/>.
|
|
