Original was from jeroen's web site. Please read my comments on the timing.

  1. y changed Thu Mar 16 2006
  2. (Times in TZ=Europe/Amsterdam)
  3. <jonas> hmm - can someone please grant me write access to SVN, please - unless of course it is generally agreed that I should no longer have access
  4. <jonas> maks: I am around because I maintain a package separate from the kernel (yaird) but interacting closely with it, so I judge it relevant to pay attention to what is core kernel activities as well.
  5. * _rene__ [~rene@dslb-084-056-086-121.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #debian-kernel
  6. <vorlon> jonas: er... "no longer" have access?
  7. <jonas> vorlon: Yep. I was part of the kernel team until today.
  8. * _rene_ [~rene@dslb-084-056-087-090.pools.arcor-ip.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
  9. * _rene__ is now known as _rene_
  10. <maks> wasn't that for when yaird was in the repo too?
  11. <vorlon> so who removed your access?
  12. <jonas> If you don't want me around then I won't bother you. But no, that's not what I have been doing here, no.
  13. <jonas> vorlon: My buest guess would be Sven...
  14. <vorlon> so there's no audit log, and no notification to users when they're removed?
  15. <jonas> I suspect not
  16. <jonas> Perhaps the alioth guys have an audit log hidden somewhere...
  17. <jonas> maks: yaird is still in your repo. And that was actually what I was going to clean up now: The yaird in the d-kernel SVN repository was pulled in by Sven and was never used
  18. <jonas> maks: ...due to my preferring to separate things and let interested parties join multiple teams, rather than having less larger - and more noisy - teams
  19. <philh> which kernel is planned for etch? 2.6.16?
  20. <Manoj> err, was there any discussion prior to removing your svn access?
  21. <vorlon> Manoj: well, given that we don't even know who removed it...
  22. <Manoj> since it appears to have been an inadvertent change, can we get it reverted?
  23. <vorlon> talk to the kernel team admins?
  24. <vorlon> tbm: ?
  25. <Manoj> I am assuming that a change-by-design would have been preceded by a discussion, and informing the concerned parties
  26. <vorlon> for all I know, someone was doing general cleanup of unused accounts
  27. <jonas> Manoj: Nope (but neither was there one for granting me access ;-) )
  28. <tbm> vorlon: yeah? Erm, I don't know. I didn't remove anyone.
  29. <jonas> tbm: Do you want me part of the team?
  30. <vorlon> that leaves dannf, wli, and dilinger
  31. <vorlon> (and svenl)
  32. <vorlon> neither wli nor svenl are here to ask, and aiui wli isn't because he's no longer active
  33. <tbm> jonas: I've no problem with you being in the team, no. Let's first find out who removed you though.
  34. <fs> we should mail inactive members and maybe drop them from the team
  35. <tbm> Or should I add jonas straight back?
  36. <fs> btw, what about ths? I would not like to drop him for example
  37. <jonas> tbm: ah, ok.
  38. <fs> is he just busy with other stuff?
  39. <dannf> jonas: what tbm said
  40. <tbm> fs: he just moved to the UK and doesn't have access to his harware.
  41. <tbm> fs: this will change in April though
  42. <dannf> jonas: have you asked alioth folks?
  43. <jonas> dannf: Asked them what?
  44. <tbm> fs: he's definitely a better mips kernel maintainer than me
  45. <fs> tbm: good to know =)
  46. <dannf> jonas: if they have a record of who removed you
  47. <dannf> jonas: if not, i will
  48. <dato> azeem did
  49. <dato> (seconds ago)
  50. <jonas> dannf: No I haven't
  51. <dato> (in #alioth)
  52. <dato> dannf: ^
  53. <dannf> dato: azeem asked? any response?
  54. <azeem> right, dannf, feel free to ask them again being an actual project member/admin
  55. <azeem> dato: nope
  56. <fs> tbm: well, you brought mips "back home" into the common package ;)
  57. <dato> 00:47 <azeem> there seems to be some confusion on who removed jonas from the kernel project without prior discussion, can this be tracked somehow?
  58. * horms [~horms@vagw.valinux.co.jp] has joined #debian-kernel
  59. <dato> 00:48 -!- dannf [~dannf@colo.lackof.org] has joined #alioth
  60. <dato> azeem: oh right, point on him being a member
  61. <dannf> thanks datao/azeem
  62. <dilinger> for the record, i didn't touch jonas's account
  63. <jonas> Oh well. I am going to sleep now. G'night all!
  64. <dannf> jonas: i'll send an e-mail out to the other admins
  65. <jonas> dannf: Thanks
  66. <azeem> an admin could try Admin->Project History from the alioth project page
  67. <azeem> member additions seem to get logged there
  68. <azeem> (never removed members from any of my projects)
  69. <tbm> ah, yeah
  70. <maks> and what does it say
  71. <tbm> removed user: js 2006-03-07 18:59 by luther
  72. <azeem> blah
  73. <tbm> nobody else got removed (i.e. no clean up took place)
  74. <dannf> tbm: oh, good catch
  75. <dannf> i'll just e-mail svenl then
  76. <tbm> jonas: added back "js"
  77. <dannf> hrm.. i wonder if its even worth talking to svenl about this
  78. <maks> that was before the bug got resolved irc
  79. <maks> anyway jonas clean up the old yaird
  80. <dannf> i don't see the harm in jonas having commit access, so i'll just drop the issue - if it happens again, i'll try to mediate
  81. <dannf> or kill myself - whichever sounds funner at the time
  82. <maks> jonas should have received a notification
  83. <maks> i'm not sure why he has commit although
  84. <maks> and i'm still fed up of his long ending threads here.
  85. <sgran> "vogon popetry makes most people want to kill themselves. Unless they are slightly smarter, in which case they want to kill the vogons"
  86. <sgran> something to bear in mind for those fun conversations :)
  87. <dannf> if he cleaned up old yaird, that sounds like good enough, and if he still wants it, well i see more chance of positives than negatives
  88. * svenl [~svenl@LAubervilliers-151-12-84-108.w193-252.abo.wanadoo.fr] has joined #debian-kernel
  89. <svenl> jonas: thank.
  90. * svenl leaves email and other such alone now, promise ...
  91. * svenl [~svenl@LAubervilliers-151-12-84-108.w193-252.abo.wanadoo.fr] has left #debian-kernel []
  92. * maks [~max@baikonur.stro.at] has quit [Ping timeout: 480 seconds]
  93. * dilinger rolls his eyes
  94. * maks [~max@baikonur.stro.at] has joined #debian-kernel
  95. <vorlon> jonas: what are you being thanked for?
  96. <horms> morning all
  97. <dannf> hey horms
  98. <dannf> horms: fyi, i'll be in tokyo in about a month i think - meeting up w/ junichi/bdale & some other hp folks
  99. * GCarrier [~gcarrier@tofu.eu.org] has joined #debian-kernel
  100. <horms> awsome
  101. <horms> if you have time i'd love you meet up with you
  102. <maks> dilinger: will you send a notice on svenl that his d-kernel account is deactivated?
  103. <maks> svenl agrees not to participate any more afais.
  104. <jvw> I think it's better to have someone less involved send a notice
  105. <dilinger> i agree. tbm or dannf should probably be the ones to disable his account, and send him an email
  106. <dilinger> i had planned on having some sort of vote on d-k
  107. <dannf> horms: yes; hopefully we can invite you along to dinner or something - I'll let you know as I book flights, etc.
  108. <horms> great
  109. <tbm> sorry, I haven't been paying attention. Is there unequivocal agreement that his account should be deactivated?
  110. <horms> as long as its in tokyo it should be easy enough for me to get to wherever you are, or alternatively, take you somewhere
  111. <tbm> and/or should we ask him before if that's okay with him
  112. <dannf> horms: cool
  113. <tbm> if we just remove him, isn't that what he did with jonas?
  114. <fs> it is
  115. <fs> and I don't think removing svenl is a solution
  116. <jvw> tbm: as a bystander, not being involved, I'd say it'd be a justified action to demote Sven to regular kernel-team member in alioth, because of having used his admin privileges to disable jonas' account without informing him or talking with any of the other admins -- but again, I'm not involved in kernel at all
  117. <fs> please re-add jonas, and let us find a solution to this mess instead of kicking everyone around
  118. * dannf thinks jonas is back
  119. <tbm> I added jonas already.
  120. <jvw> my only interested is trying to defuse this fight as good as possible, but I'm uncertain yet how -- though, such demotion certainly should be mailed to d-kernel
  121. <jvw> or at least, to Sven personally
  122. <tbm> anyway, I agree. Please email d-kernel or Sven first
  123. <fs> I am fine with revoking svenls admin privileges, but please don't kick him from the team until the last word is spoken on this issue
  124. <dannf> we could just let this go, and ask that svenl discuss removals with other admins first in the future - that should be sufficient
  125. <dilinger> well, you all know my feelings already
  126. * dilinger heads home
  127. <dannf> we have no process in place to decide someone should be removed, so punishing someone for violating it wouldn't be good imo
  128. <fs> well, dropping someones account from the kernel team without finding a consensus about it first is not what I consider teamwork
  129. <dannf> agreed
  130. <jvw> dannf: demotion would only prevent the exact same from happening again, it doesn't in any way affect svn commit access etc
  131. <fs> if we want to collaborate all together, we need to respect each other, and that line was crossed
  132. <fs> so IMHO (temporarily) removing admin status is ok, dropping from the team is not
  133. <dannf> i wouldn't lose sleep over revoking admin accesss, if tehre was a general consensus, but i don't think it will help anything
  134. * faw [~felipe@] has joined #debian-kernel
  135. <fs> it will: overreacting is wrong, only showing apropriate reactions and pointing everyone concerned to such a behaviour will help us in the current situation
  136. <dannf> if we ask him not to do it again and he does it again, then removing privs is easily justifiable
  137. <Manoj> fs: what would you consider grounds for removing from team?
  138. <fs> Manoj: destructive behaviour towards users and team-mates
  139. <horms> i think the question is not so much can we justify removing him from the team, as will that resolve the long term problem
  140. <fs> like willingly commit brteakage to others work
  141. <Manoj> fs: I see. In my opinion, the second criteria has been met -- or not, depending on whether you mean DD's or just fellowkenel team people
  142. <dannf> Manoj: honestly, i think if most people on the team want to see him go, that's probably sufficient
  143. <dato> I leave this all to you, i hope you are up to the responsability, and will not
  144. <dato> participate again in the kernel team until i am asked to.
  145. <dato> (in case it hadn't been pasted, http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/03/msg00692.html)
  146. <fs> Manoj: both. I still think those having a problem with sven have trouble coping with his humour and take things way too personal, but that may just be my perception
  147. <vorlon> fs: there's nothing humorous about a 50 message crapflood.
  148. <Manoj> fs: I don't think the names he called me, or how he characterized my work, were very funny
  149. <Manoj> but, in any case, if the "jokes" cause a work environment which is seen as downright hostile by people as diverse as joeyh and me, I think there is a problem
  150. <fs> hm
  151. <Manoj> indeed, the tool used to build kernel images, k-p, and the people building images using the tool, should really be in closer contact
  152. <vorlon> there's nothing humorous about him whining about the release team being mean to him, repeatedly, despite having shown empirically on -devel that his argument was full of shit
  153. <Manoj> this has not happened, and that does imact the project.
  154. <Manoj> I know of a couple of people who have moved away from kernel packaging, and did not join the team, because of sven -- and that comes under hurting debian as well.
  155. <fjp> He's also delaying the resolution of issues shared between d-i and kernel team
  156. <dannf> i think i'd be in favor of some kind of kernel-team-internal vote to decide if we should remove him from the alioth project - i don't think we'd need to justify it (should it pass), more than we think the team would be better this way.
  157. <fjp> We do acknowlegde things like udeb packaging and non-free modules can be improved/need to be dealt with, but have serious problems with the solutions proposed by Sven.
  158. <fs> fjp: the one udeb per module approach?
  159. <dannf> fs: rightt
  160. <fjp> The fact that discussions on these are dominated by him and that no other kernel team member/porter participates makes it hard to reach a solution
  161. <fjp> fs: No, he silently dropped that
  162. <dannf> fjp: oh?
  163. <fs> yeah, the package file would have been exploded in size otherwise =)
  164. <fjp> His last solution was to completely hijack the udeb building and make it part of kernel uploads.
  165. <fjp> And have kernel porters make the selections as part of kernel configuration somehow.
  166. <fs> fjp: ubuntu for example builds the udebs out of their linux-2.6 package, and I too think the approach is worth a try
  167. <fjp> fs: As I say, things can be improved and discussed, but openly and with more ppl involved; not now
  168. <fs> fjp: yeah. what I miss is a proposal in form of actual code, no need to discuss further before that.
  169. <fjp> I do think we need to discuss some core issues beforehand, like who is responsible for what and how can we ensure that e.g. initrd size problems (build failures) can be fixed promptly. Also how to guard against random changes breaking d-i.
  170. <fjp> Anyway, later.
  171. <fs> yeah, I have to sleep now
  172. <fs> n8 =)