MOTU application for Alessio Treglia (quadrispro)

James Westby jw+debian at
Wed Jan 21 11:57:59 GMT 2009

On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 00:34 +0100, Alessio Treglia wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:14 AM, James Westby <jw+debian at> wrote:
> > Alessio, I also owe you an apology for bringing this up now, rather than
> > at some point during the sponsorship process, or in private when
> > approached to be an advocate. I hope you don't feel that I ambushed you
> > by taking this approach.
> I accept with an open mind others opinions and I think I'm a
> "collaborative person", working hard with other developers. Any
> critique makes me grow and I'm happy when somebody talk to me helping
> me with suggestions, hints and also critiques.
> You could first get in touch with me, but you didn't do it and I'm
> sorry for that.
> I have the maximum respect for you but I have been astonished by your
> behaviour, I think it wasn't really 'fair'.

Again, I apologise to that.

> But it doesn't care, I'm sure there will be other opportunities to
> work toghether again.

I look forward to working with you many times in the future.

> >> What about if ghc6 was in sync with Debian and we were before DIF? This
> >> would have been autosynced and no-one would have noticed, so I think
> >> re-adding removed code is not the good way here because we have to carry
> >> this delta basically forever with no advantages.
> >
> > I agree, and I understood these issues. My point was that Alessio had
> > not said anything to suggest that he had, but at the same time hadn't
> > said anything that made me doubt he did either. This is something I see
> > with most uploads I sponsor from Alessio, and so I wanted to raise the
> > issue.
> Regarding ghc6: I think Luca expressed clearly the situation and I
> think the debian changelog mention everything needed: it was only a
> merge.
> Regarding sugar, it was my fault, I can only say it has not been a
> destructive action, but that doesn't change the fact that I did it. I
> lernt the lesson and I'm working hard to amend this so that I will not
>  repeat it in other circumstances.

Yes, it wasn't a destructive action, and no harm came of it.

Please be sure that I wasn't trying to find mistakes in your actions.
Everybody makes mistakes, and I certainly don't expect MOTUs to be
flawless. (For some packaging mistakes from me in the last week please
see capisuite, debbugs, dx, and debian-edu. All of which hit the archive
without any review that may catch the issues. They're only the problems
that I spotted as well.)



More information about the Motu-council mailing list