Chuck, I’ve been following this email thread. I’m a nobody here but: you can’t change the past but you control the future. People make mistakes in how things are handled. But you can avoid them in the future.
I say this as an extrovert in a senior IT position and I've been known to be “animated” in how I handle things sometimes. Have a good weekend. On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:59 PM Chuck Zmudzinski <brchu...@netscape.net> wrote: > On 9/25/2021 10:02 AM, Andy Smith wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 09:06:34AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Friday, September 24, 2021 05:31:47 PM The Wanderer wrote: > >>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994899 - > specifically. > >>> the first reply (comment 10). > > […] > > > >> I've read over message #5, and without being a Debian developer or a > user of > >> Xen, aside from being a little longer / wordier than probably > necessary, I > >> don't see anything so objectionable about it. > > [ I am not a member of the Debian Xen team and haven't contributed > > anything to this particular bug, but I have followed it all as I > > have an interest in the team's work. ] > > > > It's not outrageously objectionable, it's just not a very good bug > > report with some *slightly* objectionable elements and background. > > > > This whole thing is pretty mundane and has been blown out of all > > proportion by Chuck failing to handle reasonable advice given by > > someone trying to help in good faith. > > I don't doubt at all that the advice in message #10 was given > in good faith. I thought the author of #10's decision to rudely > refuse to collaborate with me forever by saying "Bye" in a later > message was also an overreaction to anything wrong I might > have done. > > Also what would have remained > > with a very niche audience (people interested in Debian's Xen > > packages) has now been shown to a much wider audience as a > > consequence of Chuck bringing this to the attention of debian-user. > > > > To explain a bit more of the background, you'll see that Chuck > > referred to another bug in that bug log and a lot of other > > discussion took place there. Some of the things that are wrong with > > Chuck's bug are that Chuck criticised the Debian Xen team for > > including particular patches, and made some other factually > > incorrect statements, > > For example? > > and wrote in a style as if as if the situation > > were fully known about by the Debian Xen team while valiant users > > like Chuck are crushed underfoot. > > I admit the Debian Xen Team may not have been aware > of the situation, and besides, I was more concerned that > the Debian Release Team did not notice that patches from > an unstable branch of the Xen upstream source made it > into the Debian stable release. There is what I would call > a "Debian patch" exploit attack surface exposed here to the > authors of malware. THAT is a serious issue. The Xen Team's > patches in question are perfectly acceptable in unstable and > maybe in testing, but IMO, not in stable. > > > > In reality, the Debian Xen team didn't have good visibility of the > > issue and it's not yet been proven where exactly the bug lies. Even > > if it was shown to be in a patch that the team HAD taken on > > questionable basis, so what, we are all volunteers here, there is no > > need to berate people for their good faith efforts, > > I think its an overstatement to say I "berated" anyone in the > bug report. You, however, judge me as "damned" and as a > "laughingstock" in your first reply to my original post. That also > is an overstatement of anything wrong I might have done, > don't you think? > > we should expect > > bug reports to just focus on finding and fixing the bug not as > > someone's platform to deal out a blame narrative. > > Agreed. > > > > Basically it's not a big deal and could have easily been turned > > around; I felt #10 was a fairly gentle request to focus on the facts > > and make progress but to say the criticism was not received well > > would be an understatement! > > I am truly sorry, are there second chances in the Debian Community? > > > > For example, one of the "strongest" statements in #10 is > > > > "It's good that you filed this bug against the Debian Xen > > package […] way you went about it ... not so good." > > > > Chuck's response to that seems to have been to go about complaining > > in multiple unrelated locations of how he has been accused of being > > "not good". Note that he's morphed a statement of "your bug report > > was not done in a good way" into "someone in the Debian community > > told me I was not a good person; remove their slander or risk being > > sued". A dramatic misrepresentation of what actually happened. The > > rest of it is full of things like that. > > Are you trying to say now I am not a good person? Seems so to me. > > > > It could be partially understandable if #10 had simply said, "your > > bug report sucks," which believe me, I have seen and continue to see > > even from long standing Debian Developers. But Diederik did also > > take the time to give useful advice about HOW to move the situation > > forward, in fact that was the majority of the response. > > I really appreciate Diederik's input, my point was I would have > preferred he contact me in private about any criticisms he had > for me personally before criticizing the way I wrote my bug > report in public. That is what I would have done if I wanted to > criticize him. But he is the one who made the first criticism > of a Debian volunteer in PUBLIC. So to defend myself, it had > to also be in public. That is why defamation is not the only > issue to discuss here. The other is privacy and whether or > not Debian volunteers can discuss matters privately or does > every criticism we have about another person need to > be expressed in the public forums? > > > >> I'm not sure which message Chuck wants deleted -- #5 or #10 (if > either), but > >> I'm not sure he has "standing" to ask that #10 be deleted -- it seems > he would > >> have to contact the writer of message #10 and ask him to ask that > message #10 > >> be deleted. > > I hope #10 is not deleted as it contains a lot of useful advice for > > anyone else who experiences this bug and wants to help resolve it. > > I'd also say that I can see Diederik is still working on narrowing > > down where the bug lies, > > He is probably seeing the other bug, not the bug I reported, but the > best fix would probably fix both bugs. > > so the work of Diederik and potentially > > others on the bug in question clearly isn't over, > > That is probably the other bug, because the bug > I saw on my hardware is already solved, I DID > find a fix for it. > > it can just > > now proceed without Chuck's further input. > > No need. My bug is fixed, not in the official release, but > with my patches which I shared with the community in > both bug reports. Debian is free to find another solution > that also solves the other bug, and if the other bug > is solved, I will test it and see if it also solves my bug > so I can go back to running the "official" Debian released > version instead of my patched, unofficial version. > > > > Though Chuck did clearly say that he wanted #10 deleted and > > apparently now says that he has agreement that it will be from > > someone official: > > > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2021/09/msg00802.html > > > > I remain sceptical that this is an accurate report of whatever > > discussion that Chuck has had with the powers that be. :) > > > > Cheers, > > Andy > > Same to you, > > Chuck > >
