[Libre-soc-dev] Libre-soc-dev Digest, Vol 41, Issue 6

[Elle Poirier]

Please remove me from this mailing list. 

Thanks,

Elle 

> On Oct 6, 2023, at 12:52 PM, libre-soc-dev-request at lists.libre-soc.org wrote:
> 
> Send Libre-soc-dev mailing list submissions to
>    libre-soc-dev at lists.libre-soc.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    http://lists.libre-soc.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-soc-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    libre-soc-dev-request at lists.libre-soc.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    libre-soc-dev-owner at lists.libre-soc.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Libre-soc-dev digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: #981 update (Dmitry Selyutin)
>   2. Re: #981 update (Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton)
>   3. Re: #981 update (Dmitry Selyutin)
>   4. Re: #981 update (Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton)
>   5. Re: #981 update (Andrey Miroshnikov)
>   6. Re: #981 update (Dmitry Selyutin)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 18:31:47 +0300
> From: Dmitry Selyutin <ghostmansd at gmail.com>
> To: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net>
> Cc: Libre-Soc General Development <libre-soc-dev at lists.libre-soc.org>
> Subject: Re: [Libre-soc-dev] #981 update
> Message-ID:
>    <CAMqzjes9FC+a5_hOXSdL_6O4bDVqLVLT1X0L2+P-xYHOAmCx2A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> 
>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 10:22 PM Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
>> <lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote:
>> ah. right, so written is probably much easier than verbal,
>> we went over this in the call yesterday, it would appear
>> that there is some missing communication, if we speak
>> english.
>> 
>> allow me to write out the Bureacucracy Conditions that we
>> are obliged to follow, i feel this will be easier for you,
>> and also for others in future.
>> 
>> it is *essential* due to legal regulatory obligations
>> that there be a "value for money" criteria met, as *legally*
>> required by the European Union.
> 
> Luke, I'm skipping most of the reply, because it basically answers a
> different question than the one I asked.
> You reply to the question whether it's fine to ask somebody to
> summarize the deliverables.
> But I never asked this question. I stated that you made different
> claims, related to the time and code size.
> Then you started changing the task scope, after the delivered results
> were explicitly apt to the original definition.
> 
> The fact that you might need to explicitly query what has been done in
> scope of these works is fine per se.
> Hell, even changing the definition of "done" is fine per se, as long
> as it's concluded in agreement between us all.
> I will omit the fact that the results have been posted long ago. I can
> repeat them anyway.
> My point is that your modus operandi during this task was completely
> unethical and rude.
> I cannot go into your head and know your relations and agreements with
> Peter Hsu, these should've been public in advance.
> The way the task was described (and also mentioned in #982) and the
> code I provided, they match each other.
> 
> I still haven't seen a single damn "excuse me" on this part, and,
> apparently, shall not expect it. OK, noted.
> You either don't realize what happened or just pretend everything is
> normal; and I'm close to suspecting the latter.
> 
> I repeat. Never ever go from position "how much time did it take" or
> "that's too little code here".
> You have no idea on how many efforts it took, how many revisions I had
> to squash and fixup before.
> And you have no idea of my personal situation and constraints, even if
> I posted about these on an everyday basis.
> And even if I completed the task in a single goddamn second, as long
> as the results fit the description, it's fine.
> Finally inspect the guidelines we had so far, for God's sake.
> 
> This situation is abnormal, and I will not tolerate such behavior in the future.
> 
> --
> Best regards,
> Dmitry Selyutin
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 19:19:51 +0100
> From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net>
> To: Dmitry Selyutin <ghostmansd at gmail.com>
> Cc: Libre-Soc General Development <libre-soc-dev at lists.libre-soc.org>
> Subject: Re: [Libre-soc-dev] #981 update
> Message-ID:
>    <CAPweEDw7tGNAF_rk+9r77b6mEYxC-8Cyq=qfhcbCrzPgMRHMgA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> 
>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 4:32 PM Dmitry Selyutin <ghostmansd at gmail.com> wrote:
>> You have no idea on how many efforts it took, how many revisions I had
>> to squash and fixup before.
> 
> *then tell us* - that is all we are asking!  that answer is itself enough!
> 
> a better phrase: "I spent a lot of effort doing revisions and fixup before".
> great!  this is perfect!  finished!  job is done! *move on and forget about it*!
> 
> Everyone needs to be "comfortable" justifying the work and
> the budget, if requested.
> 
> There is no "blame" here. It is very simple, and the answer can
> be very very short.
> 
> Calmly, simply, answer the question. There is no need to get
> angry or upset, and even if you do *the answer still has to be provided*
> because if we do not have an answer it risks a "Red Flag" on an
> EU Audit.
> 
> I will leave it to David and Andrey to explain further.
> 
> This is a *legal requirement* to have these answers ready.
> 
> It cannot be avoided.
> 
> l.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 21:35:11 +0300
> From: Dmitry Selyutin <ghostmansd at gmail.com>
> To: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net>
> Cc: Libre-Soc General Development <libre-soc-dev at lists.libre-soc.org>
> Subject: Re: [Libre-soc-dev] #981 update
> Message-ID:
>    <CAMqzjev8L5-xcsXa3UowR8b3XD-wnag9jhL_0rXXs5=kf8TcTg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> 
>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 9:20 PM Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
>> <lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 4:32 PM Dmitry Selyutin <ghostmansd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You have no idea on how many efforts it took, how many revisions I had
>>> to squash and fixup before.
>> 
>> *then tell us* - that is all we are asking!  that answer is itself enough!
> 
> Luke, you keep ignoring the important part, and again attempt to
> distract attention.
> You attempt to avoid the question I raised, but it won't work, I know
> well what I'm speaking about.
> The important part is: do _not_ ever post this nonsense about time or
> code size constraints.
> This is _not_ acceptable. It'd have been rude and disrespectful even
> if I was a project newcomer.
> I don't have to tolerate such an attitude, I did enough so that you
> could just be polite and make a damn excuse.
> And considering this situation, it's not me who needs to talk to David.
> 
> --
> Best regards,
> Dmitry Selyutin
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 20:10:47 +0100
> From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net>
> To: Dmitry Selyutin <ghostmansd at gmail.com>
> Cc: Libre-Soc General Development <libre-soc-dev at lists.libre-soc.org>
> Subject: Re: [Libre-soc-dev] #981 update
> Message-ID:
>    <CAPweEDzp403+TC=dRv05bbUTeagM1xsb0tkJrJNKCfye3u8JOw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> 
>> On Friday, October 6, 2023, Dmitry Selyutin <ghostmansd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 9:20 PM Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
>>> <lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 4:32 PM Dmitry Selyutin <ghostmansd at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>>> You have no idea on how many efforts it took, how many revisions I had
>>>> to squash and fixup before.
>>> 
>>> *then tell us* - that is all we are asking!  that answer is itself
> enough!
>> 
>> Luke, you keep ignoring the important part, and again attempt to
>> distract attention.
> 
> ok i am following CRNHQ "empathetic listening" here. because
> of Asperger's I have to do this, because it is not "natural"
> to me.  so please be patient ok?
> 
> the advice says "only ask questions and do nothing else until
> you get a yes back" (paraphrasing)
> 
> can you please tell me if this summary sound right?
> 
> you do not want to answer "bullshit" time and
> resource questions. they seem to be demeaning and harsh criticism
> of your work, devaluing it immensely even by just asking the
> question, yes?
> 
> is that approximately right?
> 
> l.
> 
> 
> --
> ---
> crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 20:24:55 +0100
> From: Andrey Miroshnikov <andrey at technepisteme.xyz>
> To: libre-soc-dev at lists.libre-soc.org
> Subject: Re: [Libre-soc-dev] #981 update
> Message-ID: <862ed22d-767d-9c23-5ece-266be4e13090 at technepisteme.xyz>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
>> On 06/10/2023 19:35, Dmitry Selyutin via Libre-soc-dev wrote:
>> The important part is: do _not_ ever post this nonsense about time or
>> code size constraints.
> 
> If these two points re-occur again in the context of evaluating someone
> else's work, *I will intervene and prevent them being used to undermine
> the effort of the completed task*.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, if someone wishes to approximate budgets for *their own work* based
> on the number of lines of code needed for *their task* (I know Jacob and
> Luke used this metric for themselves when scoping out repetitive tasks
> such as unit tests and implementing instructions), I'm happy for them to
> do so, *for the scope of planning a task* (as this metric is only an
> approximate, and actual work may to turn out to be shorter or longer).
> 
> 
>> This is _not_ acceptable. It'd have been rude and disrespectful even
>> if I was a project newcomer.
>> I don't have to tolerate such an attitude, I did enough so that you
>> could just be polite and make a damn excuse.
> 
> Yes, it was not acceptable. And this was a shortcoming of the system we
> had (and which we're working to improve).
> 
> Dmitry, you're an extremely important contributor to this project, and
> *both your expertise and rapid pace work are very much appreciated*.
> 
> Again, I apologise for causing you extra stress, especially with your
> recent addition to the family.
> 
> 
> To answer Luke's reply which came while I was writing (chaps, please to
> don't fire away emails...)
> 
>> On 06/10/2023 20:10, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton via Libre-soc-dev wrote:
>> ok i am following CRNHQ "empathetic listening" here. because
>> of Asperger's I have to do this, because it is not "natural"
>> to me.  so please be patient ok?
>> 
>> the advice says "only ask questions and do nothing else until
>> you get a yes back" (paraphrasing)
>> 
>> can you please tell me if this summary sound right?
>> 
>> you do not want to answer "bull****" time and
>> resource questions. they seem to be demeaning and harsh criticism
>> of your work, devaluing it immensely even by just asking the
>> question, yes?
>> 
>> is that approximately right?
> 
> To answer this, I'll take portions of comments from bug #981.
> https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=981#c5
> Jacob:
> The task seems complete to me, though, EUR 4500 is a lot of money for
> what looks like a few days at most
> 
> https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=981#c6
> Dmitry:
> I never commented on the budgets I considered too big for tasks handled
> by somebody else. Only cases I consider are when a) my task is
> underrated, b) my task is overrated, c) my task can be dropped at all as
> it's non-critical and its budget can be moved for others. I suggest to
> follow this approach as it's easier for the task owner to rate the task.
> Deal?
> 
> I'd say it fits bug #982. I don't expect much to be done there; also
> parts of it fit ELF support which I, frankly speaking, find to be
> underrated.
> 
> https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=981#c11
> My mistake, where I didn't realise the scope of already completed work.
> 
> https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=981#c14
> Dmitry
> I must confess that it is a strange news. During our meetings I
> mentioned several times that I'm working on this, discussed the budget
> and whether this task should be moved or not, did all works and then
> found it's effectively cancelled. I'd prefer not to waste my energy and
> do something more practical if I knew that in advance. Please provide
> some rationale.
> 
> https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=981#c23
> Luke:
> but i cannot in any way justify signing off a rate of EUR 4,500 per day
> when the agreed rate as approved by the EU Independent External Reviewers
> is EUR 3,000 a month.  the difference of 50x higher is just too great.
> 
> The reason Luke mentioned this, is because there was confusion as to the
> extent of the work done (it *seemed* short, but actually *wasn't*).
> 
> 
> I ask for you all to let this issue go. Give it time for situation to
> diffuse, and I ask for your patience. I can't learn and improve
> management for this project overnight. In the last two weeks, I was able
> to make much progress, but there's still a long way to go.
> 
> 
> If there is further correspondence, I *urge you* to walk away from the
> keyboard until next week. It's already almost 11:30pm where Dmitry is,
> and Luke, in the UK also getting a little late.
> 
> 
> 
> One of my priorities (among many other things), is to move forward with
> the overdue grants, as well as finally sign off the MoU for the ongoing
> grant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 22:51:41 +0300
> From: Dmitry Selyutin <ghostmansd at gmail.com>
> To: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net>
> Cc: Libre-Soc General Development <libre-soc-dev at lists.libre-soc.org>
> Subject: Re: [Libre-soc-dev] #981 update
> Message-ID:
>    <CAMqzjetpSBLUO9vnTCxiGuzC8bu2JsMo32LqkuoeqrSN-RaHig at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> 
> Luke, I'm aware of your personal situation, and this is the only reason I'm
> still communicating. I'd have not wasted so much time and energy to argue
> with any person, and would just literally told something rude (I won't post
> examples here, but you can easily guess a couple of phrases which could
> have been a perfectly apt alternative response to anybody less personally
> important to me).
> 
> Yes, this is, even though approximated by magnitude, is what I mean. Please
> understand: I'm fine with writing a report on my work, that's what I do on
> an everyday basis. It's not the fact that you asked to summarize the work
> (by the way, you haven't done it in task, in my opinion, you just mention
> it here, but I treat your replies in the task differently) which made me
> angry. I am pissed with wordings like "this is done too fast" or "this has
> too little code"; they simply disvalue what I've done. In fact, I'd have
> expected the praise for that, not blame. This is the second time from you,
> and there was a similar statements from Jacob.
> 
> I can and will write reports (despite that I already wrote those throughout
> the scope of the tasks), but I will not look for an excuse if I did
> something faster or with lesser amount of code, this is nonsensical. Plus
> it contradicts our guidelines:
> 
> Q: What if i take a longer or shorter time?
> A: If it's shorter, great! you still get the same gift/donation (good for
> you!) If it's longer, then, well, this is really no different from having
> given a "quote" for a job. If that's really problematic we may be able to
> sort something out.
> 
> So, to summarize:
> 1. I ask everybody to drop this idiotic practice of accusing somebody of
> doing something fast or simple, it contradicts to common sense and
> depreciates the actual value of the work. You might alternatively lower the
> budget if you feel the task ends up being simpler (but keep in mind,
> simplicity pretty much depends on the person who develops).
> 2. Please avoid from switching task scope here and there as you like. There
> must be an agreement between all parties. As stated per one of your
> comments in 981, you are ready to approve budget, because it made a lot for
> 982. But this is not correct. I did 981, and did exactly as was discussed
> in description and comments for 981 and 982. It's unfair to claim that I
> did something else. In fact, I almost did both, including the most crucial
> pieces for 982; does my budget for 982 really reflect it? I doubt it. But
> even with this in mind, you and Jacob had a courage to estimate my works as
> too simple and having a little code.
> 3. Do not contradict to your own guidelines. If you need to update them —
> bring it to discussion. However, as I said, I see no practical point in
> limitations for time or code size, they are absurd and will effectively
> kill the project. And I feel absolutely sure that's not what any same
> person expects, and I believe this definition of sanity includes NLnet and
> EU auditors.
> 
> Best regards,
> Dmitry
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Libre-soc-dev mailing list
> Libre-soc-dev at lists.libre-soc.org
> http://lists.libre-soc.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-soc-dev
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of Libre-soc-dev Digest, Vol 41, Issue 6
> ********************************************