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

From: Gido Griese maemo at gido-griese.de
Date: Sat Mar 8 15:05:05 UTC 2014
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.

> 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.

> 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. Are you making generalisations for
other people here? - Who exactly is against HiFo as an organization?
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 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. And was this really in relation to any of todays' directors?
And even if so, what does that say about the HiFo e.V.?
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. 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.
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), than
to 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.

> 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?
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. 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> ...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?
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.
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.

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

> 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.


-- Gido Griese/Win7Mac

More information about the maemo-community mailing list