[OT] Guido Draheim vs. Peter Simons vs. Rest of the World (was: Macro Archive Relaunch)

[Peter Simons]

Let me summarize the statements you made in your e-mail:

 (1) You cannot commit new versions of macros into the GNU archive
     because I revoked your CVS access:

      > I would well do so, but you threw me out of cvs access, and
      > having a dozen macros send by mail is a tedious task [...]

    Also:

      > [You would] kill write-access and not let me help you to keep
      > the gnu macro archive in the most uptodate form as possible.


 (2) I am suffering from delusions assuming that you could possibly
     commit macros with broken formatting intentionally:

      > It must have been unintentional, and since the sfnet website
      > did use the very same formatter, it would have broken the
      > webpage on sfnet as well. No need to spawn conspiracy theories
      > here, there are none about.


 (3) I am dragging personal matters into the public:

      > [...] I do _not_ like it that problems in personal
      > interrelations are going to a public mailing list.


 (4) I threw away your efforts to contribute to the Autoconf Macro
     Archive:

      > [...] I came on you asking whether it would be fair to merge
      > packaging into the ac-archive infrastructure. You said yes and
      > gave me the key.

      > When the work was done, I asked you if that was okay for you.
      > You said no, and threw it out - I was trying to ask you _what_
      > was wrong and to help me to fix it so that it does suit your
      > taste. No response.


So let's get this over with:

You say that could not update the macros in the original archive
because I revoked your commit rights. This is contrary to the facts:
You DID commit obsolete macros into the archive. Looking at

http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/ac-archive/ac-archive/macros/legacy/misc/ac_need_target_h.m4?rev=1.3&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup

will confirm that. Clearly, you stopped updating the archive while you
still had CVS access.


You furthermore say that the broken formatting must have been a
mistake, arguing:

 > It must have been unintentional, and since the sfnet website
 > did use the very same formatter, it would have broken the
 > webpage on sfnet as well.

You forget that you committed the broken macro into the original
archive, while the new one, which apparently worked perfectly with the
"macro2html" tool, went into your own repository. If nothing else, you
did not bother to check that your additions to the archive even work
-- which is the whole point of having a maintainer. Given the comment
at the top of the macro (that the link above will show), I don't think
assuming intention is an outlandish thing to do. For the record I
admit that I cannot prove intent, so -- if you prefer that -- I will
reduce my statement to you being careless.


You complain that I drag personal matters into the public. First of
all, this is not a personal matter. I don't know you. For all I know,
you might be the sweetest guy in the world. It doesn't really matter
either. I don't have a problem with you personally.

I have a problem with you copying my infrastructure, the archive I
maintain, the web page I created around it (verbatim, word by word) --
but you don't give any credit about it at all. Even better, you
actually bash the effort I am putting into it. (On this list, on your
web site, and in the commit messages of your CVS repository.)

I have a problem with you misleading the users of your archive. On
your web page you say:

 | If you want to contribute ...
 |
 | then please don't hesitate a second! Just send the m4 source to
 | Guido Draheim <address@hidden> via electronic mail. [...] Note that
 | the two ac-archive repositories (sourceforge and savannah) are
 | constantly kept in sync [...].

The two archives are NOT kept "in sync". You download the macros from
the GNU archive and add them into yours -- but not the other way
round, because I do not accept submissions unless they come from the
AUTHOR of the macro, since he is the only person who can license his
intellectual property according to the terms described on my page. You
make it look as if it really doesn't matter where authors send their
macros to, because they will end up in both archives anyway, right?
The truth is, that if someone submits a macro to the GNU archive, it
will end up in both archives. If he sends it to you, it will be
available in yours only.

I furthermore have a problem with you advertising your archive as
being the cool one, which "offers space for experimental extras",
while you call the original one the "basic archive". What exactly does
that mean? Do you have evidence of me ever rejecting a submission
because it was too "experimental"?

I have a problem with you -- through intent or carelessness --
breaking the build mechanism of the GNU archive, as I have said
repeatedly.

My impression is that you have a _personal_ problem with me. Not the
other way round. When I posted my original article to this list, I
knew that you would JUMP at it, and that you wouldn't have many
positive things to say about what I do. Surprise! Here we are.

To address the other part of your statement: I reply to e-mails I
receive through a public forum in the same public forum. Sending an
e-mail to this list, which makes false claims, and then telling me
that we should discuss this in private, is a half-assed way of trying
to get the last word.


Last but not least, let's look at your repeated claim that I threw
away your work. If you would kindly look at the commit message shown
here:

http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/ac-archive/legacy-ac-archive/Attic/Makefile.am?hideattic=0

you might remember that I was pretty busy moving the archive onto the
GNU server at the time, when you added LOADS of stuff. As the result,
I was not able to build the archive ON MY OWN MACHINE, because it
simply did not work. So I moved your changes into a branch. I did NOT
throw it away. But you chose to feel mortally offended, and that is
where the whole mess began.


I have no intention whatsoever of trying to "resolve" this issue. I do
not want to discuss this matter to a much greater extend than I did
already. It feels nice to have gotten this off my chest, finally, but
it is childish nonetheless. Anyone who is even remotely interested in
this topic can look at the publicly available web sites and CVS
repositories, to gather all the facts he would ever need to have an
opinion about this.

I did release the archive's infrastructure under the GPL license and I
am perfectly prepared for people to do with it whatever they want to
as long as they obey the license. It is not necessary for me to _like_
what they do with it.

Any further constructive discussion may, of course, take place in the
original thread, which I intentionally split off this stupid flame
fest of mine. :-|

Peter