[maemo-community] maemo.org infra safety - HiFo action URGENTLY needed.

[From: joerg Reisenweber]

On Sat 08 March 2014 16:05:05 Gido Griese wrote:
> Am 07.03.2014 02:19, schrieb joerg Reisenweber:
> > On 28 February 2014 06:57, joerg Reisenweber <joerg at openmoko.org> wrote:
> >> OK, you say HiFo is doing system administration on maemo servers now,
> >> either you or some proxy? Fine, I'm pondering to step down from that
> >> position then,
> > 
> > Maybe you missed the irony tags? Or did you purposely edit them out by
> > picking this quote without giving context?
> 
> There were no tags in original mail. No irony, only the idle threat to
> step down.
> Jaffa did not edit or pick this quote without giving context. Turns out
> this is just another false accusation that shows how trustworthy you
> are. We just didn't want to wait for you to step down, we had to react
> to his statement. Now it seems you have changed your mind - showing off
> what a turncoat you are that basically does whatever he feels like.

Mhm, and your above thread is absolutely logical and the equation "I ponder 
to"=="I'm going to" is generally OK? When you don't see the irony in "HiFo is 
doing system administration on maemo servers now" which is neither announced 
nor supposed to work, then I can't help you out. The logical link between 
"HiFo does admin" and "I'm pondering to step down" is the key here, and I call 
that a perfect ironical statement.
And again a note on your tone: you think " showing off what a turncoat you are" 
is helping normalizing the mood and "relations" between HiFo and me? Maybe in 
line with your "you're blackmailing HiFo" accusation?


> 
> > For the record: I'm NOT fine with HiFo doing system administration.
> 
> Since that would mean you'd have to relinquish your position, probably not.

Not at all, I'm not happy with wasting my time and nerves on this shitty 
position that gets me nothing but bitching from your side. My concern is about 
HiFo's incompetence yet HiFo thinks they can do everything they want. See 
below for more on that...


> 
> > And obviously 2/3 of council and all of core techstaff isn't as well.
> > Core techstaff (see below) actually isn't happy with how HiFo acted and
> > still does act, and mood is to rather stop volunteering in maemo than to
> > participate in what HiFo seems pushing to establish here.
> 
> So far, I only heard your rants. 

That's because rest of techstaff isn't even inclined to talk to HiFo anymore, I 
guess. This is all so terribly annoyingly silly and useless, I wonder why and 
where I found motivation to continue on it, by e.g answering this mail.


> Are you making generalisations for
> other people here?

No.


> - Who exactly is against HiFo as an organization?

Who said "against HiFo as an organization"?
To help you out, I'll quote myself: >>Core techstaff (see below) actually isn't 
happy with how HiFo acted<< Another one of your equations?
Please be more precise in your questions and argumentation!


> You know HiFo is not happy with the issues it had in the past. And you
> know much of that was because of a single former director that left
> board long ago, but still, regardless of that, you're trying to
> discredit Hifo in general 

I do? Isn't it HiFo themselves who act in a way that discredits them?


> and it's directors in special.
> What HiFo in fact is pushing to establish here is a complete new start
> with a different organization level, that includes everybody involved.
> Nothing less, nothing more.
> 
> > You already managed to alienate a few maintainers and supporters who
> > actually drew that consequence and resigned.
> 
> Please elaborate, who exactly got alienated or resigned for which
> reasons. 

I leave it up to those who did, to speak up publicly.


> And was this really in relation to any of todays' directors?

Nobody said that. I said HiFo's recent actions taken alienated maintainer(s).


> And even if so, what does that say about the HiFo e.V.?

Probably nothing since we haven't seen this thing happen yet. 
nobody said it had any relation to HiFo. Agian, it been caused by HiFo's 
current activities.


> What I do see though is that you keep on bashing HiFo, sabotage the
> transition towards the e.V. and encourage others, esp. techstaff to do
> the same by putting up false and misleading claims. 

Mhm, could you elaborate now?


> You are ignoring
> several circumstances here:
> 1) The e.V. will be very different to what HiFo used to be, it is not
> meant to continue what we have or had. Instead, it's a chance to start
> all over again and the approach is to have everybody actively involved
> in the boat, and not left outside. What good is an organisation where
> certain people in key positions don't feel obliged to its' standards?
> 2) 3 of 4 todays' directors will not be part of the new board
> 3) the General Assembly, not the board of directors, will be the highest
> jurisdiction in the e.V.
> 4) positions of maintainers and supporters will be strengthened by #3)
> The weight of their voice and vote will increase massively.
> 5) You simply refused to contribute to the bylaws, nota bene as a native
> speaker, and rejected the chance to form them accordingly to what you
> seem appropriate.

All of the above can get implicitly commented with my next line:

> I really wonder why you come up with this just before we are about to
> launch. It's obvious to me that you rather prefer to see HiFo as an
> organization go haywire (and presumably inherit maemo leadership),

there *IS NOT LEADERSHIP TO INHERIT FROM HIFO* and that you think there would 
be is pretty much showing the whole misery and relativates all of the above 
shiny statements.
HiFo IS NOT leader of maemo. When there's an entity leading HiFo then that's 
maemo council, NOT HiFo. This got established by community, on several 
referenda, years ago.

> than
> to move an inch.

As a maemo council member I'm bound to council rules and mustn't "move an 
inch"

> 
> > well, any good relations between me and HiFo never been a part of my job
> > description for the position as maemo administration manager.
> 
> This seems to be the major disaccord here. Inability or unwillingness to
> keep good relations is not a basis to have people in key positions really.

Mhm, and your very post demonstrates your effort and qualification to keep "good 
relations" to maemo council and techstaff lead, right?


> 
> > Regardless of the lack of any 'official' mandatory relations between
> > maemo admin manager and HiFo, see below.
> 
> See #Merkel on #Putin in #Crimea crisis: "in another world"... Who the
> hell you think you are?

What the hell do you say? And what the hell do you think HiFo is? See above.


> HiFo gave Council the ability to approve maintainers in part because
> Council was more responsive. This was done at a time when above
> mentioned, long gone single former director was on the Board, and things
> went unanswered for weeks to months (even from other Board members).
> HiFo is the legal owner of the systems. 

Prove this!


> It alone has the legal right and
> responsibility to maintain them. It can hand part of that duty out via
> delegation, but it may rescind or override that delegation at any point
> from a legal stand point.

Legal like what? Where's your document showing you have *any* saying in maemo 
infra? And what makes you think any agreements between council and HiFo done 
on anticipatory assumption of future ownership of maemo infra by Hifo are now 
up to HiFo's arbitrary discretion to cancel or change them, or ignore them? 
again that absolutism about "leadership"? 


> 
> >> and thinks the immediate and ongoing assistance you've provided with
> >> regards to maemo.org system administration has run its course,
> > 
> > You're free to think that. It's however neither relevant nor correct. See
> > below.
> 
> See above.

ditto.


> 
> >> as the tech staff team is now well established.
> > 
> > That's a severe misconception.
> > 1) ...HiFo shouldn't interfere with techstaff duties and infra
> > maintenance
> 
> Thanks again for reminding us how blatantly you are ignoring the
> difference between duty and responsibility.

Aha. Maybe we need Miriam webster? Duty is "doing a task" (which HiFo did when 
establishing this new offsite backup without even informing council and 
techstaff at large about it), responsibility is about being liable and in 
charge to decide.
I don't think *I* am mixing up things here.

> 
> > 2) any such techstaff team basically doesn't have *any* business with
> > HiFo - thus *my* relation to HiFo as member and organizational lead of
> > techstaff team is absolutely irrelevant.
> 
> See above.

ditto.


> 
> > 3) my role as maemo administration manager/coordinator is not only to
> > lead techstaff and to find and introduce new maintainers and sysops and
> > coordinate their activities, I'm also the one point of responsibility
> > for "keeping the keys", read: deciding and overseeing who gets access to
> > maemo infra on which level, and thus securing integrity of maemo.org and
> > defending it from any threat. This task isn't one that eventually is
> > accomplished.
> 
> Your role as maemo administration manager/coordinator not only went to
> your head, it also isn't desired at all to have one single person
> resposible for this, that's why we have an organization.

Dream on. None in techstaff is willing to discuss with "an organization" about 
any technical aspects. Nor have I seen any of HiFo doing *any* effort to 
introduce new maintainers. And how exactly do you think an organization shall 
handle permissions on a unix system? will you all use same account and same 
password? What's your idea of infra maintenance based on? As explained before 
and above, techstaff at large isn't willing to work with HiFo on that level. It 
didn't even work on a abstract decision level despite *me* originally 
insisting in that, so the agreement been that HiFo keeps out of anything but 
appointment of sysops
And honestly, you are showing off clearly here that HiFo lacks knowledge and 
experience to do anything in maintenance. In short: you're not qualified. Not 
even to consider any conditions that would establish an end of a certain 
technical or organizational role in maintenance.


> 
> > ...the democratic structures in maemo community at large...
> > ...the carefully balanced maemo organizational structure...
> > ...long established community-approved democratic structures and towards
> > an almighty HiFo that thinks it has the power to control everything...
> 
> Initially, things never were planned like this. It is a rudiment of the
> inability of HiFo and council to find a mutual consent back then. But it
> is, of course, the aim of any organization to handle such stuff within
> the organizational structure and not outside of it. That's what
> organizations are there for, isn't it?

That's a vast generalization, an organization to handle contracts and assets 
isn't supposed to deal with IT maintenance - that's the whole point. HiFo is 
maemo community's cashier, no more no less. Are you suggesting the cashier of 
any arbitrary organization is supposed to play sysop?


> With the e.V., we are aiming to fix this obvious flaw and include
> everybody holding a position in the organization as that is the only
> reasonable thing to do. Just because this didn't happen so far, it
> doesn't mean it's a bad thing to do or even an argument to continue with
> this unclear situation, especially not in a new organization.

This is obviously true and a sane approach, however maemo council is the older 
and superior "authority" and neither HiFo nor any e.V. can ignore or abolish 
it, no matter for what purpose.

> And of course we're not aiming towards an "almighty HiFo blabla..." if
> that refers to the board of directors. This is just another too obvious
> attempt to discredit HiFo in general and its' directors in special.

This is just another silly statement to discredit me and the concerns againt 
how HiFo acts and where it heads to. See above "LEADERSHIP" wider topic.


> 
> > Anyway please note that no "working together" between techstaff and
> > HiFo is supposed to be part of how maemo works. HiFo is responsible
> > for money and contracts (to put it simple), techstaff is responsible
> > for securing and maintenance of the infra, and council is responsible
> > for decisions about all that. Any HiFo cooperation is with council.
> > Any techstaff cooperation is with council.
> 
> Repeating this senseless crap that council activity happens outside of
> HiFo doesn't make it any better. 

Again tone! Show me the statement that says "coucil is part of HiFo, is acting 
inside HiFo and is 'lesser' than HiFo"


> And logically, HiFo is *not*
> responsible for paying anything that happens outside of its' organization.

Aha! Please read your own foundation bylaws.


> 
> > Fine! thought as much, you can't come up with any quote showing you're
> > right.
> 
> This is the line that Woody refers to:
> > Prepare for infra going down. I'm done with this shit.
> 
> Now everybody make up your own mind how much you want to depend on one
> single admin (with a tendency to choleric blowouts) that doesn't feel
> obliged to anything.

You're again showing off that you have no idea how administration works. I 
myself took care that maemo infra is not depending on any single person. 
You're free to check back with Falk and Xes to get confirmation on this.
And when somebody of your qualification would be going to maintain an infra 
like maemo, I consider an advice like "prepare for infra going down" a rather 
reasonable and justified one.
I give you the "tendency to choleric blowouts", I'm actually sometimes not 
able to stay calm when i have to deal with nonsense and foolish behavior like 
we see in here. Which doesn't imply I'd act similarly foolish, my power of 
reasoning  isn't impaired by any moods.
I feel obliged to community who elected me as council member, to council 
rules, and first and foremost to keeping maemo infra safe and defend it against 
threats from outside, no matter if those threats are originating in any other 
maemo associated entity or somewhere unrelated to maemo at large.


BR
/jOERG
-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail     
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments
(alas the above page got scrapped due to resignation(!!), so here some 
supplementary links:)
http://www.georgedillon.com/web/html_email_is_evil.shtml          
http://www.nonhtmlmail.org/campaign.html
http://www.georgedillon.com/web/html_email_is_evil_still.shtml    
http://www.gerstbach.at/2004/ascii/ (German)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-community/attachments/20140308/6b867f67/attachment.pgp>