Ciaranm is spreading more FUD in the -dev ml and refuses to back it up Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: As can be seen on http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ff0eb4d34a96811127cd85030919f00c.xml, ciaranm made the following claim: * have some insane paranoid conviction that Freenode staff are the ones busy spying on everything they say, whilst conveniently forgetting to notice that Gentoo's own infra team and current Council nomination group includes the person who abused root powers to sniff out lilo's password and give it to the GNAA. I've gave him a chance to provide some evidence to back up his claim on http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_e5674ea3fc217bb70ac10093aff4faa8.xml He's reply can be seen here - http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_44677f95a6f820ebe8b1d9dd6820862d.xml As such, I'm proposing a ban for ciaranm. I think previous history justifies a permanent ban, but I'm open for a limited ban.
I vote for a perm ban for him as he has shown time and time again to not play well with others. I mourn the loss but it has been a losing battle getting useful stuff out of him for a while and I for one am tired of trying. -Alec
I'm not refusing to back it up at all. I'm just suggesting that you contact the appropriate parties for statements rather than getting information second hand.
Ciaranm, if you had told that to me or anyone else in private, that would be a valid reply. The minute you brought it to a public ml, telling people to go look for themselves is not an option. You're making an accusation without name (preventing the accused party from defending [him|her]self or making [him|her] fall to the "trick" and "accuse" [him|her]self) and because you don't provide any evidence, that person can't prove it to be false or not. As you know, making "serious" claims of wrongdoing on public mediums, without providing the evidence to support it, is spreading fud. IRL, that's a good way to get sued for slander.
I wasn't aware that this wasn't common knowledge... So far as I know, everything I posted in that list is well known, and the list was merely a summary. But if you're genuinely claiming you know nothing of this, you really should talk to the parties involved rather than demanding second or third hand information.
I'm spoken to freenode staff; I was in a relationship with freenode staff at the time of incident. There was no evidence outside of verbal evidence and I'm not going to have this 'he said she said' fight over who thinks who did what. Did he possibly do something stupid; sure. Does anyone have any hard evidence he did something; not that I've seen. The infrastructure member in question has admitted only deleted some files in what was an unused portion of a freenode server. He has not admitted (in my hearing) to tcpdumping to get lilo's oper password and giving it to the GNAA. -Alec -Alec
I just want to add a note to make it clear that I'm asking for a ban from the -dev ml.
(In reply to comment #6) > I just want to add a note to make it clear that I'm asking for a ban from the > -dev ml. Is there any reason you're not prepared to talk to the people involved? They could very easily tell you that there is no FUD. But if there really is some reason you can't talk to them, I'd be quite happy to ask them to comment myself.
(In reply to comment #4) > I wasn't aware that this wasn't common knowledge... So far as I know, > everything I posted in that list is well known, and the list was merely a > summary. This is disingenuous to say the least. Your comment was made as if to indicate insider knowledge of events that the wider community knows nothing about. > But if you're genuinely claiming you know nothing of this, you really > should talk to the parties involved rather than demanding second or third > > hand information. > If all you have is hearsay, then you should not have presented this as truth in a public forum. The onus is upon you to show evidence that you are speaking the truth, and not spreading malicious gossip. Since this happened quite a while ago, I believe it is, since it has no relevance. [Do you have any evidence that the hypothetical "disgruntled dev" you have previously mentioned (since this could be the only area of relevance) has any basis in reality?] Further, as an outsider, I find it remarkable that you post so incessantly to the list, all the while denigrating Gentoo[1], the Council, both teams of competing package managers [3][4] (who appear able to cooperate with each other) and the entire community [5] (I note you refer people to your blog despite complaining about the use of blogs.) I include the thread in [4] as an example of recent threads which appear dominated by you, and note that a user who has been supportive of you mentions the tortuous process of dealing with you. The recent "flamewars" all have one common feature: you post one or two line snippets _constantly_. These have led to the recent posts from users [5] complaining specifically about these threads as far as I can tell. You dismiss all viewpoints which do not agree with yours [6] and you quite happily contradict yourself, on the one hand implying that a developer who is questioning the real-world usage of FEATURES="test" is insulting the team [7] while in the same breath stating that in practise this doesn't happen [8] (and while you're there insulting the team.) You seem to have no awareness of social interaction or the reality of people's lives, stating directly that they simply "don't care" or "can't be bothered." Can you not see that this is insulting? And you are doing this to volunteers: people don't work on Free software to have a tyrant constantly insulting them. They do it to get away from that crap and focus on what they love. You *kill* that sense of joy. You present yourself as some sort of saviour [9] when the simple truth is that you are killing the sense of fun in Gentoo and wasting a great deal of developer time and energy [10][11]. The social interaction matters [12] to most human beings. That you are unaffected by the anger you inspire, seeming to take it as some sort of vindication, does not change the fact that you were asked to leave for exactly this sort of behaviour (which frankly appears indicative of a personality disorder.) Please, accept that Gentoo does not want you, nor does it need you. Let them mess up their QA if that's what it takes; and please don't say it's for the users. We all know that to be a lie. [1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ff0eb4d34a96811127cd85030919f00c.xml [2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_6d055986453e2556fc4e3a801bac45fa.xml [3] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_03bc634476432d49f95e58bcd8c2050f.xml [4] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/56682/focus=56982 [5] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_7a89abe7dfc44b4145fe6bc1c34a6127.xml [6] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_4407ed8962c315a3a807445ec891ae2a.xml [7] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_143cfde836b29d1742b809d2a535d712.xml [8] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_891f599ab456d2e2d5ffd6c15e34211f.xml [9] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_3cc6a1cecb20df4fb27f41258fd488bc.xml [10] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_deb21ebfdfda748a2cf885a38d1320b2.xml [11] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/57011 [12] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/56997
(In reply to comment #8) > [snip lots of noise] > You *kill* that sense of joy. Your right to a sense of joy stops at the point where your lack of regard for anything except whether or not you're having fun impacts upon everyone else. Cleaning up mess made by other people who were too busy having fun to do proper QA or think things through properly is not fun for anyone. If everyone treated Gentoo as a playground as you seem to want, there wouldn't be anything usable left amongst the mess made by everyone's broken toys.
(In reply to comment #8) Steve, next time you might want to check your link numbers before you post. Several of them don't seem to be related to the text the reference appears in, and it makes it quite hard to figure out what your point is. > Further, as an outsider, I find it remarkable that you post so incessantly to > the list I don't think you're in a position to complain about that, given your tendency to reignite dormant threads with multiple posts attacking people you disagree with[1], as well as spamming for your IRC channel and bot at every opportunity[2][3]. [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/46339/focus=46745 and others in that thread [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/56008 [3] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/52739 > all the while denigrating Gentoo Not really. The post you link to expresses frustration with certain areas, but it explicitly says that Gentoo isn't a lost cause. > the Council What, no link? > both teams of competing package managers The comment about the Portage team seems to match experience. You didn't provide a link about pkgcore, so there's nothing really to refute there. > the entire community Please read more carefully, it says nothing of the sort. What it does say is that the needs of a highly small and non-representative subset of the community are given too much priority. > (I note you refer people to your blog despite complaining about the use of > blogs.) Again, if you had read properly, you'd have seen that the complaint was about blogs being used as a replacement for discussion, not about blogs being used in general. > I include the thread in [4] as an example of recent threads which appear > dominated by you > [4] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/56682/focus=56982 Really? It looks more like an example of someone posting unprovoked personal attacks on the PMS team. > and note that a user who has been supportive of you mentions the tortuous > process of dealing with you. Who would this be? > The recent "flamewars" all have one common feature People posting FUD personal attacks in the middle of what's supposed to be a technical discussion? > These have led to the recent posts from users complaining specifically about > these threads as far as I can tell. Yes, it's a shame, isn't it? > You dismiss all viewpoints which do not agree with yours I don't know where you get that idea from, certainly not the post you linked to. The opposite seems far more common, namely people dismissing Ciaran's viewpoints out of spite. > and you quite happily contradict yourself, on the one hand implying that a > developer who is questioning the real-world usage of FEATURES="test" is > insulting the team while in the same breath stating that in practise this > doesn't happen Again, read more carefully, that's not what it says at all. > You present yourself as some sort of saviour You're reading things that just aren't there. "I haven't given up on Gentoo" is nowhere near presenting oneself that way. > you are killing the sense of fun in Gentoo and wasting a great deal of > developer time and energy Again with this idea that mails on a mailing list are somehow evil. > (which frankly appears indicative of a personality disorder.) Yay, personal attacks. > Please, accept that Gentoo does not want you, nor does it need you. We know that you want to get rid of Paludis, but please don't speak for the whole of Gentoo when you say that. > Let them mess up their QA if that's what it takes Um, as a Gentoo user, I'd really rather they didn't do that, if it's all the same to you. > and please don't say it's for the users. We all know that to be a lie. No, it is not a lie.
(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #8) > Steve, next time you might want to [...] Who is Steve? Are you suggesting Ranjit Singh is the same person as, perhaps, Steve Long? >snip< Disregarding whether the remainder of your rebuttal is to the point, the content of comment #8 isn't relevant to the subject matter of this bug as posted in comment #0. The matter of comment #0, the unfounded claim of a very serious crime allegedly committed by an infra member[1], could be sufficient basis for a ban to be issued. [1] Which is to say, a claim that on its own could very well damage the reputation of the accused beyond repair and would kill his or her livelihood.
(In reply to comment #11) > [1] Which is to say, a claim that on its own could very well damage the > reputation of the accused beyond repair and would kill his or her livelihood. Doesn't that make you rather glad I'm repeatedly asking anyone who doesn't know to talk to the people involved, rather than sticking names and details in a public bug?
(In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > [1] Which is to say, a claim that on its own could very well damage the > > reputation of the accused beyond repair and would kill his or her livelihood. > > Doesn't that make you rather glad I'm repeatedly asking anyone who doesn't know > to talk to the people involved, rather than sticking names and details in a > public bug? No. If your accusation is true and correct, this infra member should be immediately removed from anything Gentoo and probably his job, and maybe even from society for a few years, and you would be wrong to withhold this information from the software project you apparently want to protect.
(In reply to comment #13) > No. If your accusation is true and correct, this infra member should be > immediately removed from anything Gentoo and probably his job, and maybe even > from society for a few years, and you would be wrong to withhold this > information from the software project you apparently want to protect. As you can see from comment #5 and elsewhere, this isn't exactly a big secret... Plenty of people know, yet those same people are content to spend weeks arguing about whether spb (who doesn't have Freenode privs and who doesn't own Freenode kit) is sniffing their sekrit meetings and whether Gentoo needs to move itself to OFTC to protect itself from Freenode spies.
Oops I got the link for #4 wrong, apologies: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/56682/focus=56815 I appreciate this bug was opened about one post, but I don't think the FUD is confined to one post. As for a "playground", I totally agree devs should be doing their best and the distro is not their toy: that doesn't change the fact that it's a voluntary effort, which from my reading used to be fun to work on. The last month on the ml looks anything but fun (it's been painful to read, frankly, so one can only imagine how it must feel to be involved in.) And from what I've seen, which I accept is limited, the devs care about their work and do their best; the software is certainly a lot better than it used to be. Heaping abuse and scorn on them (or indeed throwing in irrelevant accusations two years after the fact) seems counter-productive. Allowing that repeated pattern of behaviour sends out the wrong signals to anyone who might want to get involved; believe it or not some of us prefer working in a supportive group, especially when we're not getting paid for it. And no, my name is definitely Ranjit (not that it's _anything_ to do with the matter at hand; is that what you call an "ad-hominem"?)
(In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #13) > > No. If your accusation is true and correct, this infra member should be > > immediately removed from anything Gentoo and probably his job, and maybe even > > from society for a few years, and you would be wrong to withhold this > > information from the software project you apparently want to protect. > > As you can see from comment #5 and elsewhere, this isn't exactly a big > secret... Plenty of people know, All I know is that one of the freenode staffers thought the dev in question did a stupid thing. I have no other evidence than those words and I chose to measure them as insufficient to really know what actually happened. In the end it is Freenode's word versus his own. > yet those same people are content to spend > weeks arguing about whether spb (who doesn't have Freenode privs and who > doesn't own Freenode kit) is sniffing their sekrit meetings and whether Gentoo > needs to move itself to OFTC to protect itself from Freenode spies. > I don't believe this to be the case and I have repeatedly asked the folks who want to move to come up with some actual reasons besides this theory. I would note that I haven't seen people lamenting about how much spb is spying on them on public mailing lists (however much they may whisper in private); obviously they have no evidence to make such a claim public; hence they have not done so.
Mail sent to Ciaran, Userrel, and Infrastructure regarding the conclusion of this bug. Ciaran has been banned from gentoo-dev for 5 days. -Alec
This despite the person we're discussing having just been fired for misusing Gentoo hardware? Has anyone actually contacted the people involved yet, as I've been requesting all along? Because as I've said several times, I'd really prefer it if you either did that or explained why you wouldn't before any more evidence is posted in public... Or is this some lame attempt at retaliation?
(In reply to comment #18) > This despite the person we're discussing having just been fired for misusing > Gentoo hardware? Has anyone actually contacted the people involved yet, as I've > been requesting all along? Because as I've said several times, I'd really > prefer it if you either did that or explained why you wouldn't before any more > evidence is posted in public... > > Or is this some lame attempt at retaliation? > One has nothing to do with the other Ciaranm. It is only you who've made that jump without any reason to. It was a decision reached by the entire team as a whole involving this bug only and comments you've made such as this one that I'm replying to and quoting which is accusatory in nature. I would kindly suggest that you accept the 5 days and come back after that time. If you continue to push in ways that show that you have no intention of changing or learning that how you treat people have consequences then further action might be required in the near or longer term future. Do not bring up issues that have nothing to deal with this bug here. If you bring up a matter that was handled by the infrastructure team that is not related to a user at all (userrel is handling this bug....as you're a user). If you continue down this line, I have no issue recommending a longer ban for failure to understand that not everything is linked and that there's a great huge conspiracy going on from various parties in two distinctly seperate distributions that exist.
As I understand it, this bug is because I suggested that a Gentoo developer abused access privileges on hardware used by an open source project, and then asked that anyone curious spoke to the people involved before asking me to provide detailed evidence in a public place. Is this correct, or am I misunderstanding the reason for the suspension?
I should also add that it was decided yesterday what would happen before anything was known about what transpired today.
Well, in light of what you now know, would you like to reconsider the decision? Or would you like more evidence to back up the original claim? Bear in mind that so far as I know, you still haven't privately asked the involved party for details, and this is a public bug.
(In reply to comment #22) > Well, in light of what you now know, would you like to reconsider the decision? > Or would you like more evidence to back up the original claim? Bear in mind > that so far as I know, you still haven't privately asked the involved party for > details, and this is a public bug. > should you bring anything forward here this will be closed to users. I would suggest you don't and this is your last warning. I've told you once already here to accept it as the matter had been decided. If you continue to push as I had suggested you would earlier. There would be a longer absence for you from the mailing lists.
So hang on. The bug's about me not providing evidence to back up the claim, and now you're saying if I do back up the claim you're going to take this further?
No, what I'm suggesting is that you have directly ignored my polite request to accept the decision that was made, and you have not. You are decent at debating. That I don't doubt. However, you don't play nicely when its not your way. This is not going to go your way. The 5 days will stay...I'm currently considering extending it for disregarding suggestions otherwise. If you were to submit proof here, the bug would simply be locked from view.
So you're saying that I'm not allowed to ask questions, even though doing so will help me and others work out what it is you expect us to do to avoid doing whatever it is you find objectionable again in the future?
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/coc.xml There's a number of items there that you routinely violate. Flaming is the act of sending or posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting. Posting/participating only to incite drama or negativity rather than to tactfully share information. Being judgmental, mean-spirited or insulting. It is possible to respectfully challenge someone in a way that empowers without being judgmental. I will not debate you on this, and while you might not agree that you violate it it will stand as it stands now. I am done with this for tonight.
(In reply to comment #27) > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/coc.xml > > There's a number of items there that you routinely violate. So the suspension was not for something that's been discussed on this bug? Your email said that it was. Please explain.
*sigh* I can't mention anything else unlike you apparently.... yeah.... The email you received is the notice of the reason behind it. Feel free to continue to stand here and feel confused over something that even if its explained to you, you won't get. I've tried in the past with different issues and given up hope that you would understand.
Ok, could someone else from userrel please explain, or point me to the parts of this bug I should reread in an attempt to understand?
(In reply to comment #30) > Ok, could someone else from userrel please explain, or point me to the parts of > this bug I should reread in an attempt to understand? > W.R.T the Original Opening bug: dated 19th June 2008: " Ciaranm is spreading more FUD in the -dev ml and refuses to back it up Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: ... " This bug was opened w.r.t accusations of freenode conpiracy NOT "abuse of Gentoo hardware"
(In reply to comment #31) > (In reply to comment #30) > > Ok, could someone else from userrel please explain, or point me to the parts of > > this bug I should reread in an attempt to understand? > > > > W.R.T the Original Opening bug: dated 19th June 2008: > > " > Ciaranm is spreading more FUD in the -dev ml and refuses to back it up > > Reproducible: Always > > Steps to Reproduce: > ... > " > > > This bug was opened w.r.t accusations of freenode conpiracy NOT "abuse of > Gentoo hardware" > No, it'a not about freenode conspiracy and never was. It turned into a question about whether ciaranm would post evidence for his statement on an open bug, and he chose not to. In my opinion, he correctly directed people who cared to the parties involved, because posting the information publicly would not be in anyone's best interest. He believed, evidently mistakenly, that this particular '*' paragraph was common knowledge and thus I suppose sort of a throw-away line. There is no good reason to post further to this bug that I can see. So please don't.
(In reply to comment #30) > Ok, could someone else from userrel please explain, or point me to the parts of > this bug I should reread in an attempt to understand? > A few things: This bug was concluded before the incident involving quotes.exherbo.org; I was a bit lazy during enforcement because it was near the weekend. My feeling on this was that telling everyone to go ask freenode staff about the incident that was years ago (has to be around 3 IIRC) was insufficient. Most people don't care and the people who do care probably just think you are making up the event; by not providing any evidence you have failed to back up your accusations. I realize that you presenting evidence is not in your best interests because the majority of readers on the gentoo-dev have some distrust of you; however I would imagine that you dug that hole yourself and now you have to live in it. It is also kind of tough on freenode staff as they then have a subset of the mailing list going to bug them about an incident that they frankly either didn't know about because they were not staff at the time; or don't remember well because it happened many years ago. In short; please present a compelling argument next time instead of telling folks to look elsewhere. I hope this explanation is sufficient. -Alec
Comment #25, from userrel, says I should not provide evidence. Comment #32, from userrel, says I am correct in not providing evidence on a public bug. Comment #33, from userrel, says I should provide evidence. Please explain, then, how userrel would like me to address the original point of this bug.
