fyi, at michael's request, as wolfgang's sponsor, we had a chat last
night. In short, I advised him to refrain from any further personal
online (bz) comments, and highlighted expected behavior wrt the code of
conduct. He's going to be taking a break from bz for awhile (until he
<cwg-bounces(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> on behalf of Ankur Sinha
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 2:50 AM
Subject: Re: Seeking a mediator
On Sun, 2015-05-31 at 13:37 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> The problem with that is that when you subscribe someone they have
> access to the archives, so they can look back at any other stuff from
> the past. :(
> So, I don't think thats too great an idea...
Oh, yeah, I forgot the archive part.
I'll mail Wolfgang later today and cc the private list.
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"
Is there anyone, who could help with the following dispute?
In particular, I think a reaction/comment from FAS user 'raveit65' is
inappriopriate and ought to be much more friendly/respectful in the future.
I've asked for an apology, but it has been denied.
More than a year ago there has been this bug report:
I've been involved both in that ticket with several comments and explanations
and have talked also to upstream as a packager.
Recently there has been a new bug report about exactly the same issue, which
prompted 'raveit65' to make false claims and use a choice of words I cannot
| This is a packager bug of audacious maintainer.
| He ignores to apply a simple fix during package build.
| Maybe you report force him to patch out nonsense unbuntu settings for audacious.
1.) It is not "a packager bug", because it has been added by upstream in 2012.
2.) I didn't ignore anything. I've responded quickly and multiple times.
3.) Talking about "forcing somebody" is a sign of hostility. If you cannot convince
upstream (or don't even try to), force the packager instead?
4.) The word "nonsense" is another extreme. Upstream's rationale has been
And finally, placing me at the centre of his frustration/wrath is entirely