Dear Andreas,
I wish to officially report a grievance against the Community Team for
its handling of my messages to Debian Project mailing lists over the
past year, and I request a review of its actions with regard to me by an _independent_ reviewer or panel thereof, with an opportunity to present
a defense and/or nominate an advocate to present one for me. I feel
that the Community Team has acted toward me with hostility and a lack of collegiality unbecoming to delegates of the Debian Project Leader.
I have modified the following only to obscure the title of a thread to debian-private. The quotation Andrew offers appears to be an
approximately correct (if incomplete) representation of my words, and I
waive my privacy in the portions I authored of the debian-private
message to which he refers. (That is, I cannot and do not waive privacy prvilege in portions of the message that I didn't write, such as
quotations of other people who mailed -private.)
Please advise how you will handle this request. I feel that all Debian Developers are entitled to due process and should receive it.
Regards,
Branden
----- Forwarded message from "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> ----- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 23:10:25 +0000
From: "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com>
To: "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com>
Cc: community@debian.org
Subject: Community Team warning [WAS Re: XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX] Message-ID: <aYppYaslFiULuwGm@einval.com>
Hi Branden,
This is a formal request to cease your current behaviour on Debian mailing lists. If your behaviour on Debian lists does not improve, the Community Team will suggest a permanent mailing list ban as a minimum course of action.
You have previously been warned about inappropriate styles of communication
on Debian lists and have served a temporary mailing list ban. Once that ban
was lifted, you returned and continued in the same manner.
"By the same reasoning, the Debian Project could prevail upon you to
change or omit your given name from Debian-related communications. Per Wikipedia, "Domini[ck]" means "Lordly", "Belonging to God" or "of the
Master". One interpretation is an inappropriately hierarchical status
for our egalitarian organization; another is potentially offensive to
those of our membership who do not practice a deistic religion."
Debian is *not* an American college debating society nor particularly a
forum for complicated philosophical turns of phrase. Having returned to debian-private, you are again abusing the norms of Debian lists, producing "wall of (unhelpful) text" emails and contributing to a toxic atmosphere.
This is sorely testing the patience of readers of the lists. Your two
messages in the latest thread are symptomatic of the problem - you did not change your approach or acknowledge your problematic response, even after
Russ Allbery intervened.
You are evidently content to be in continual breach of the mailing list
code of conduct and the main Debian code of conduct. If you no longer wish
to be constructive within Debian, it remains open to you to request emeritus status.
For the avoidance of any doubt here: continuing in this way *will* result
in your being referred to DAM with a view to removal from the project.
Thank you for givng this your fullest consideration.
Andrew Cater
(amacater@debian.org)
For Debian Community Team

----- End forwarded message -----


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.11
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Oh boy, I sure don't miss being subscribed to that list.
I'm failing to see anything in your message that would let anyone provide
an objective position on the actions your sharing.
What's the tl:dr? Is someone complaining that your given name offends them?
or that you deliberately modified the name you use to cause harm?
A person's name is their name. We don't tell other people they are wrong
about their legal/given name nor any gender-affirming alternatives. We are meant to be inclusive.
The only exception I can think of would be willful use of language to cause
our express a desire for harm. For example, if you demanded the salutation Dominik, to prefix your given name.
I'm not going to dig into the archive because basic human respect shouldn't
be this difficult and it's why Debian is losing active contributors.

That said, I will say that I found the email warning concerning. It engages debate and creates confusion where it should only be a simple restatement
of facts...something that, of shared, would provide all an outside reader
would need to draw a conclusion.

On Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 08:03 G. Branden Robinson <
g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Andreas,

I wish to officially report a grievance against the Community Team for
its handling of my messages to Debian Project mailing lists over the
past year, and I request a review of its actions with regard to me by an _independent_ reviewer or panel thereof, with an opportunity to present
a defense and/or nominate an advocate to present one for me. I feel
that the Community Team has acted toward me with hostility and a lack of collegiality unbecoming to delegates of the Debian Project Leader.

I have modified the following only to obscure the title of a thread to debian-private. The quotation Andrew offers appears to be an
approximately correct (if incomplete) representation of my words, and I
waive my privacy in the portions I authored of the debian-private
message to which he refers. (That is, I cannot and do not waive privacy prvilege in portions of the message that I didn't write, such as
quotations of other people who mailed -private.)

Please advise how you will handle this request. I feel that all Debian Developers are entitled to due process and should receive it.

Regards,
Branden

----- Forwarded message from "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com>
-----

Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 23:10:25 +0000
From: "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com>
To: "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com>
Cc: community@debian.org
Subject: Community Team warning [WAS Re: XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX] Message-ID: <aYppYaslFiULuwGm@einval.com>

Hi Branden,

This is a formal request to cease your current behaviour on Debian mailing lists. If your behaviour on Debian lists does not improve, the Community
Team
will suggest a permanent mailing list ban as a minimum course of action.

You have previously been warned about inappropriate styles of communication on Debian lists and have served a temporary mailing list ban. Once that ban was lifted, you returned and continued in the same manner.

"By the same reasoning, the Debian Project could prevail upon you to
change or omit your given name from Debian-related communications. Per Wikipedia, "Domini[ck]" means "Lordly", "Belonging to God" or "of the Master". One interpretation is an inappropriately hierarchical status
for our egalitarian organization; another is potentially offensive to
those of our membership who do not practice a deistic religion."

Debian is *not* an American college debating society nor particularly a
forum for complicated philosophical turns of phrase. Having returned to debian-private, you are again abusing the norms of Debian lists, producing "wall of (unhelpful) text" emails and contributing to a toxic atmosphere. This is sorely testing the patience of readers of the lists. Your two messages in the latest thread are symptomatic of the problem - you did not change your approach or acknowledge your problematic response, even after Russ Allbery intervened.

You are evidently content to be in continual breach of the mailing list
code of conduct and the main Debian code of conduct. If you no longer wish
to be constructive within Debian, it remains open to you to request
emeritus
status.

For the avoidance of any doubt here: continuing in this way *will* result
in your being referred to DAM with a view to removal from the project.

Thank you for givng this your fullest consideration.

Andrew Cater
(amacater@debian.org)
For Debian Community Team

----- End forwarded message -----

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.11
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

(apologies for obvious autocorrect errors)

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.11
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Dear Branden,
thank you for setting out your position so clearly.
I want to be equally clear in response.
The Debian Community Team acts under my delegation and enjoys my full confidence. Its role is to protect the ability of the project to work productively, inclusively, and at scale. When the Community Team
intervenes, it does so based on the effect of behaviour on the wider
community, not on personal disagreement or rhetorical style preferences. Unproductive behaviour on Debian mailing lists - including excessively
long, complex, and unfocused messages that consume disproportionate
attention and discourage participation - is not acceptable. This is not
an abstract concern: Debian is a global project, with many non-native
English speakers and contributors who have limited time. Communication
that systematically excludes or exhausts others directly harms our
ability to serve our users.
With respect to your request for an independent appellate process:
Debian's Constitution and current governance structures do not define
such a mechanism for reviewing Community Team actions of this kind. What
you are proposing reflects a personal interest in procedural review, not
an established project process. Creating ad-hoc bodies or new review
structures in response to individual cases would itself consume
significant time and attention - time that is already scarce and that
the project owes first and foremost to its users.
Due process in Debian does not mean that every enforcement action
requires the creation of a new institution. Delegation exists precisely
so that the project can function without continual escalation and
paralysis. The Community Team has acted within its mandate, and I
support its actions.
My expectation is that all Debian Developers communicate in ways that
are constructive, proportionate, and mindful of the shared resource that
is our collective attention. Continued failure to do so will have
consequences, as already communicated to you.
Kind regards,
Andreas.

Am Mon, Feb 09, 2026 at 05:24:31PM -0600 schrieb G. Branden Robinson:

Dear Andreas,

I wish to officially report a grievance against the Community Team for
its handling of my messages to Debian Project mailing lists over the
past year, and I request a review of its actions with regard to me by an _independent_ reviewer or panel thereof, with an opportunity to present
a defense and/or nominate an advocate to present one for me. I feel
that the Community Team has acted toward me with hostility and a lack of collegiality unbecoming to delegates of the Debian Project Leader.

I have modified the following only to obscure the title of a thread to debian-private. The quotation Andrew offers appears to be an
approximately correct (if incomplete) representation of my words, and I
waive my privacy in the portions I authored of the debian-private
message to which he refers. (That is, I cannot and do not waive privacy prvilege in portions of the message that I didn't write, such as
quotations of other people who mailed -private.)

Please advise how you will handle this request. I feel that all Debian Developers are entitled to due process and should receive it.

Regards,
Branden

--
https://fam-tille.de


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.11
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Subject: Resignation (was: Publicly requesting appellate process for Community Team action)

Hi Andreas,
At 2026-02-10T20:43:22+0100, Andreas Tille wrote:

thank you for setting out your position so clearly.

I want to be equally clear in response.

Thank you for your prompt attention to my message and request.

The Debian Community Team acts under my delegation and enjoys my full confidence.

[...]

With respect to your request for an independent appellate process:
Debian's Constitution and current governance structures do not define
such a mechanism for reviewing Community Team actions of this kind.
What you are proposing reflects a personal interest in procedural
review, not an established project process.

That is not the case; rather it reflects a lack of confidence that an independent review of Community Team action can survive scrutiny without
a slate of procedural reforms, irrespective of such reforms'
applicability to my case.
If such reforms were implemented, even without any alteration to the disposition of any actions against me personally, and they seemed to
seriously address my concerns regarding the transparency of delegate
procedures and accountability to the project membership (see generally
my messages to -vote and -project over the past year), I'd be happy and
more hopeful for Debian's future.

Creating ad-hoc bodies or new review structures in response to
individual cases would itself consume significant time and attention -
time that is already scarce and that the project owes first and
foremost to its users.

[...]

Due process in Debian does not mean that every enforcement action
requires the creation of a new institution.

I agree. While I left the point unspecified, I did not request an
ad-hoc body, but rather a standing, permanent one, chartered to meet any
such scenarios as may arise in the future.

Delegation exists precisely so that the project can function without continual escalation and paralysis.

That claim can be made in opposition to any appellate process anywhere,
in any context. To understand why Debian needs one here, you can
discount my words and experiences, directing your attention instead to
other concerns, worries, and objections Debian Developers have raised,
on the debian-private list and elsewhere, over the past few years.

The Community Team has acted within its mandate, and I support its
actions.

Acknowledged.

My expectation is that all Debian Developers communicate in ways that
are constructive, proportionate, and mindful of the shared resource
that is our collective attention. Continued failure to do so will have consequences, as already communicated to you.

Understood. While I applaud your recent actions to dissolve one of
several fiefdoms within project administration, I worry that leaving
others to fester, and/or permitting those surviving to strengthen, will
reflect as poorly on your tenure as Project Leader as it did on mine
(and my predecessors' and successors').
I predict further unhappy episodes involving individual Debian
Developers who adopt a stance of critical inquiry toward sites of
personal power in project administration, even if such critics carefully
avoid the hazards, off-putting to some, of long emails and hard words.
I feel that the Debian Project and I no longer have anything to offer
each other. Time will tell if mine serves as the last cautionary tale.
I resign from the Debian Project, effective immediately. I express no preference regarding my placement in emeritus status. Do as you will.
Regards,
Branden


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.11
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Subject: Re: Resignation (was: Publicly requesting appellate process for Community Team action)

Quoting G. Branden Robinson (2026-02-10 21:35:59)

I resign from the Debian Project, effective immediately. I express no preference regarding my placement in emeritus status. Do as you will.

I am sad that you leave. Debian needs your criticism.
Fare well,
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
* Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.11
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Yeah...my time for emeritus is long overdue.

Anything significant that was underway has been handed off, any remaining
code or predictive warnings have been shared, and TDC only changes for breaking gcc updates.

pabs: You shaped my career and countless others. You are my vision of
Debian's strengths and potential.

yadd: We realized an ambitious vision with tremendous potential. You are
truly a code wizard.

kartik: You pushed me to understand the Debian constitution beyond surface-level memorization. This moment is bittersweet.

debian: So long, and good luck.
- --
MTecknology
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEBs1j101ZjEpH5CyWA6iJGnZa0IUFAmmLn4EACgkQA6iJGnZa 0IUMABAAvTkJR3qN/7OA/uGtoixcf/ctU78U8h4/y8E+2EtJGlSxz1Ynmr2W2wEo V1Ezqm/jz8OOwWiLBbuqWXs+Xm4cB1J+hjdx1hy/w6UcUOJNFJxGnwXqCiIAV2EZ X1UOeULE6kNr3Iz8Jwn9FobMRPUdXdVDqvkubvTcGNSTd1ko+kifO9mIooRfR/yp aLEnCBiHajKmKF90huy9/kRAKZ1kSIzhXnAO5A6+HAsJ/9gqPRV2n6v7I/2VEXFp pcEnzkECzcY5ctL5O2aPTOrgWMSOt6H7mQxUrUq+56IFf1hA9zKzBvJGI7Kbv7dy +aLbdoBNI3vVb1e87rR9Ic5OzZctVayu0FxEQEdlt6UgfMzIc6onSmtjXwpq135y fSENz/qBbaB40Dr0RrzRnk/+hnt3tiiFXBjlMwMlg2X7fFL/2Imb/0JXqMHTYjKk tJiChBlurZOU4OwWtsdJYlVfY94HjczsGERXUlFK27Q8npVyiD/BnTsnN+olO98b uLCosIXFj7gWFGCGw4Il0ph/jUnMRdrV6fwA6RE8NAFDzPL07m76LaKx76bIMiTx VPaA5F1mTz0RzdKtzuBu6V79YIUHT9HM7AI7AL5lYC01YKkdHYeD8t2M6CM2eYA8 4L87ZORGUs+5GZBzNfOn/OqsUjA1fBYAwvniU+LYVgn5ANpVdD8=
=/5O+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.11
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Subject: Re: Resignation (was: Publicly requesting appellate process for Community Team action)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 14:35:59 -0600
"G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Andreas,

At 2026-02-10T20:43:22+0100, Andreas Tille wrote:

This exchange uses a great many words to arrive at very little, and I don
?t see
it producing anything constructive.

What I?m seeing is entrenched positions restated at length, with no
apparent
interest on either side in narrowing disagreements or identifying a path forward. That may be cathartic, but it isn't progress.

I attempted to offer a response that might shift the conversation in a more productive direction, and clearly failed to do so.

This outcome appears to be the usual fate of concerns raised by anyone with
out a
close connection to the current DPL.

Such is the world we live in,
- Cheers

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.11
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Subject: Re: Resignation (was: Publicly requesting appellate process for Community Team action)

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 10:13:41PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

Quoting G. Branden Robinson (2026-02-10 21:35:59)

I resign from the Debian Project, effective immediately. I express no
preference regarding my placement in emeritus status. Do as you will.

I am sad that you leave. Debian needs your criticism.

I agree what Jonas said. In my opinion, it was not the contents of the messages you sent, it was the way and the choice of words that let where
we are not. You could have changed that without throwing decades of
Debian membership away, just by toning down yourself. I am sad to see
that you chose the nuclear option.

Fare well.

Greetings
Marc


-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.11
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Subject: Re: Resignation (was: Publicly requesting appellate process for Community Team action)

On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 10:46:18AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:

I agree what Jonas said. In my opinion, it was not the contents of the messages you sent, it was the way and the choice of words that let where we are not. You could have changed that without throwing decades of Debian membership away, just by toning down yourself. I am sad to see that you
chose the nuclear option.

+1

Fare well.

indeed & hoping to see you again, Branden!

--
cheers,
Holger
???????
??????? holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
??????? OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
???
Covid. Changing hearts and minds since 2019. (@1goodtern)


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.11
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Marc Haber <mh+debian-projectzugschlus.de@zugschlus.de> wrote on 11/02/2026 at 10:46:18+0100:

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 10:13:41PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

Quoting G. Branden Robinson (2026-02-10 21:35:59)

I resign from the Debian Project, effective immediately. I express no
preference regarding my placement in emeritus status. Do as you will.

I am sad that you leave. Debian needs your criticism.

I agree what Jonas said. In my opinion, it was not the contents of the messages you sent, it was the way and the choice of words that let
where we are not. You could have changed that without throwing decades
of Debian membership away, just by toning down yourself. I am sad to
see that you chose the nuclear option.

I don't know if Mark suggests that you could have toned down yourself
just to avoid Community Team's mails or because he thinks that you
actually were too aggressive in your choices of words, but I fully agree
if it were the latter.
There is so many ways to share the same idea with someone without being perceived as unneededly blunt or aggressive, and most of the time, you
seemed to willingly chose the unneeded way while, unsurprisingly, others managed to share the same opinion in a way that was far more efficient
because the person receiving the opinion was not immediatly on the
defensive due to a questionable choice of words.
Since you were mentioning your own term, I can't resist to mention that,
a few years ago, I read this interview you gave when you eventually
succeeded at becoming a DPL: https://www.linux.com/news/interview-branden-robinson-new-debian-project-leader-0/
It's sad to see yourself falling in some pitfalls your past self seemed
to see clearly more than twenty years ago.
--
PEB


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.11
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Hello,
I'm sorry to hear this. You provided us with many valuable insights in
many of your messages. I would hope that you could stay on and seek
feedback from the many of us who would be up for helping you avoid ire,
but I understand thinking that enough is enough.
--
Sean Whitton


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.11
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Hello,
Michael Lustfield [10/Feb 3:13pm -06] wrote:

Yeah...my time for emeritus is long overdue.

Anything significant that was underway has been handed off, any remaining code or predictive warnings have been shared, and TDC only changes for breaking gcc updates.

pabs: You shaped my career and countless others. You are my vision of Debian's strengths and potential.

yadd: We realized an ambitious vision with tremendous potential. You are truly a code wizard.

kartik: You pushed me to understand the Debian constitution beyond surface-level memorization. This moment is bittersweet.

debian: So long, and good luck.

Just to confirm, is this a resignation notice from you too?
--
Sean Whitton


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.11
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

dr@jones.dk wrote:

Quoting G. Branden Robinson (2026-02-10 21:35:59)

I resign from the Debian Project, effective immediately. I express no
preference regarding my placement in emeritus status. Do as you will.

I am sad that you leave. Debian needs your criticism.

Indeed. I had my share of disagreements with Branden over the years, but
his recent emails have been a pleasure to read.

--
ciao,
Marco

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.11
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Subject: Resignation of MTecknology (was: Re: Publicly requesting appellate process for Community Team action)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

My first/second attempt to reply on-list with a detailed/thoughtful explanation seem to have been silently discarded, so no idea what happened. It was at least able to get the people who needed to see the copy; this is one last attempt to provide a public response. (attachments removed, email me if you want a copy)
- ---

Note: All "quoted text" is paraphrased.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 11:58:22 +0000
Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> wrote:

Hello,

Michael Lustfield [10/Feb 3:13pm -06] wrote:

Yeah...my time for emeritus is long overdue.

[...]

Just to confirm, is this a resignation notice from you too?

Yes, this is indeed my own resignation as well, although I can see now that it was excessively curt and I apologize for the confusion this caused. Some of the people who believe they were the reason I chose to "revoke my option to interact" have asked me to speak more candidly on the frustrations that led me to resign.

Long-Term Concerns
- ------------------

To start this off, let me clarify that there is no single event that drove this decision and my references to world politics are more than just casual.

systemD
- -------

This change in perception of Debian dates all the way back to systemD. Rather than coming together to collectively discuss technical merit, the Debian Constitution was abused to force the decision out of DD hands. The claim was that we can keep supporting both, but then we immediately saw removal of (fully-functioning) support for other init systems. This change in Debian ultimately came down to politics over technical merit.

To me, this mirrors Ajit Pai, who was given a position solely to remove Title II classification of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), along with (my) representatives that were paid to look the other way. ISPs claimed it was totally not about failing to meet standards or making fast lanes, yet Verizon was caught with fast lanes the same day the law changed, and rural access saw the expected tank in service.

Salsa
- -----

This perception deepened when it became time to retire Alioth. This was a well-known pain in Debian architecture, and performing two critical tasks made it especially difficult to replace. There was a brief call for discussion, however I now perceive that as entirely for show because the decision had already been made and the only thing left to do was get drunk and pick a name...salsa, because "we're eating chips and salsa."

I was told that the decision was made and if I want to have anyone consider anything else, I need a fully-functional prototype that fully integrates with existing authentication and it needs to be in Debian's main archive.

It took about two days for me to work out authentication, using gitea with certificates handled by nginx. Getting gitea into main was going to take a lot more work as a solo project, but that requirement was eventually dropped...for gitlab anyway. Ultimately, the challenges were insincere and the choice had already been made.

Was gitea the right choice, or would something else have been better? We'll never know. When I attempted to obtain resources so that I could run it on debian infrastructure, rather than my own VM, Wirt literally said (in #d-admin) that he will rage-quit the project if anyone gives me any of Debian's resources, and that was enough to ensure my requests never saw a response.

I continued pushing gitea into debian/main because I genuinely thought gitea was a great candidate and didn't see why there should be any problem having multiple options, especially when one could be mirrored to the other and it was me personally footing the bill for gitea.

Call for Resource Usage
- -----------------------

This was prior to an email thread on d-private@l.d.o, with the subject:

Spending Debian money, Dev boards, laptops, upcoming Lenovo discounts and more...

SSO
- ---

It was not long after that "we may as well use gitlab as the new SSO provider" came up, to which I found immediate alarm. In truth, this [1,2] is still something that I find very concerning.

I attempted to ask for some time to build something that addressed concerns, but the conclusion was, "I don't hear anyone, so you should just do it." [3]

I still believe that LemonLDAP-NG [4] is the best long-term solution for Debian SSO. Xavier literally wrote that software from the ground up to serve The National Police [5] and knew better than anyone how to build an SSO solution with long-term concerns put to rest. All of their internal developers are encouraged to become DDs because their own release into production is through main. He even wrote a plugin [6] that was able to fully replicate certificate-based authentication, providing backward compatible migrations.

Unfortunately, this was also just bits to the wind; the oligarchs already
made their choice and serious discussion was never on the table.

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2020/04/msg00054.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2020/04/msg00005.html
[3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2020/04/msg00086.html
[4] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2020/04/msg00009.html
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Police_(France)
[6] https://salsa.debian.org/yadd/debian-sso

Unhealthy Discussion
- --------------------

This perception of claiming to engage in constructive conversation while doing the exact opposite is not mine alone. It is a common plea that I do not believe has changed in any significant way.

I have been given permission to repeat this segment from d-private@lists.d.o, that captures my feelings perfectly:

I have always had great appreciation for the community members'
technical skills, which are generally far beyond average. However, for
the longest time, I erroneously assumed that people with great ability
to analyze technical problems and to devise solutions for them would be capable of doing the same for social problems.

Everything escalates here. Issues get amplified way beyond proportion,
people shout past each other louder and louder trying to get the last
word (which they'll never get, since enough of them never realize when
it's time to walk away from a discussion, even if you're in the right).

De-escalation seems to be such a foreign concept to parts of this
community. Some things clearly deserve a strong response. Some don't,
and much like a Rorschach test, the fact that said stuff still produces endless threads says nothing about the stuff, but about the people
producing the thread.

This thread was also the point where I was no longer able to handle the mental toll of being on that mailing list and unsubscribed. A few claimed that I shouldn't be part of the project if I'm not subscribed to that list, even though I was still working toward becoming an "FTP Master" (team member).

FTP Team
- --------

While contributing to that team, I was subjected to an opaque process that was clearly used to play favorites. Trainee reviews were rarely discussed openly, unless being used for open reprimand. It was incredibly uncommon for Trainee reviews to actually be reviewed at all, unless at least one FTP Master was dedicating their time to fast-track their favorite Trainee...in order to gain access to make policy changes.

In #d-ftp-private, team members were very open about which packages they wanted to prioritize and which uploaders got to the shit list and should be ignored. Anyone who attempted to suggest a replacement project was responded to by never again seeing their own package reviews reviewed; effectively making them (us) "Permanent Trainees."

Perhaps the most shocking interaction I witnessed was deciding someone "need not apply" because "[they] don't trust anyone involved with that many teams."

Review Tool
- -----------

There's only so much that someone can do without support of others, and FTP Team effectively shut down my own project efforts by stating their opposition and booting one of those trainees--because they shared something from #d-ftp-private onto d-private@lists.d.o (instant +kb).

This was the point when I began to take very long breaks. Aside from responding to requests for advice, my entire activity can be shown on github/MTeck/tdc. [7]

[7] https://github.com/MTecknology/tdc/commits/debian/

Tag2Upload
- ----------

- From my perspective, this was rushed to GC in a similar way to sytemD, and then
dropped because, "we found a loophole so we don't need your approval."

New Review
- ----------

I recently became aware of a renewed [8] interest in a replacement review utility [9] that would address historical concerns. I was very excited about this and attempted to share my own [10] attempt to solve core requirements. I honestly thought this was going to finally renew my interest in Debian and get me excited for a long-term project grind.

Unfortunately, I quickly discovered that the current replacement tool [11] was built by an LLM and had all the signs of fundamental framework misalignment (i.e. golang+nodejs+reactjs+bootstrap...with dart a planned addition) and I was easily able to pick out some security and performance issues that are common to LLM-generated Golang. To put this bluntly, dfsg-new-queue [11] "feels" exactly like a bad demo [12].

I felt like my concerns were being ignored, so I forwarded them [13] to DPL, accepted further silence, and disengaged. It feels worth repeating this bit:

Anyway, there are certainly other people with FTP Team history that would love
to resolve core issues, although it's doubtful any of them would unite without
jumping back to waterfall a complete system--and I'm going to double down on my
outside perspective that you are absolutely at the most perfect point for that.

[8] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2020/03/msg00476.html
[9] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2026/01/msg00004.html
[10] "Screenshot from 2026-01-05.png", fasalo_review.txt, review_setup.png
[11] https://salsa.debian.org/awm/dfsg-new-queue
[12] https://github.com/MTecknology/LLM-Demo
[13] "Fwd: [michael@lustfield.net: Re: Bits from the DPL].eml"

Appealing Community Team Action
- -------------------------------

A few have asked something to the effect of, "why now? why this?" or...
"If you were subscribed to d-private@, you would have seen he was in the wrong."

Let me clarify that this is "the [thread] that broke [my] back" because I felt like something brought out of private, to the project, warranted at least an honest review and hoped to head off any drama with a facts-driven response [14]:

1. I stated that no objective position can be drawn from what was shared
2. Asked for some sort of simple explanation
3. Also posed a best-guess hypothetical with simple conclusions
4. Commented on concerning language in the warning email

It is #4 that I want to repeat and focus on:

That said, I will say that I found the email warning concerning. It engages debate and creates confusion where it should only be a simple restatement of facts...something that, if shared, would provide all an outside reader would need to draw a conclusion.

Looking back at the original email warning [15], I still believe that it:

- - Fails to call out the specific behavior that is problematic
- - Leaving ambiguity that yields all-or-nothing assumptions
- - Lacks constructive feedback that could guide improved communication
- - Comes across as adversarial and emphasizes extreme response
- - Phrases expulsion as punitive rather than an unfortunate protection
- - Closes any potential dialog that could improve future communication

I also find it very concerning that someone expressed resentment toward Branden for publicly sharing the warning from Debian Community Team. From my perspective, this is akin to bodycam footage that should have been used to improve future reprimands.

Instead, the response was [16] outrage and doubled down on this problematic approach, using language that reinforces a top-down, dismissive posture rather than fostering understanding or improvement. I was particularly concerned by "acts under my delegation and enjoys my full confidence," because it comes across as authoritarian and confirms a defensive and closed process.

Branden reached out privately and the conversation began in a way that would certainly lead to an expected reprimand if conducted on-list, but this was also easily resolved in one single message, with subsequent messages being a mutual apology. To be frank, I suspect this is what was lacking from any historical dispute resolution because it truly was, "oh, sorry, not sure WTF I was reading."

[14] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2026/02/msg00058.html
[15] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2026/02/msg00057.html
[16] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2026/02/msg00060.html

My Resignation
- --------------

My decision to resign [17] was solidified, written, and sent while waiting to board a multi-day return flight to the US, and it came alongside a recognition that both home country and beloved project continue to remain deeply divided. I'm left with the perception that both were great attempts at democracy that gradually turned into a collection of decision makers who more closely resemble an oligarchy.

During a moment of meditation and reflection, I questioned if there is any place for an old greybeard like me to keep trying, despite being continually disillusioned by current direction. When I thought about the silence my concerns received, the answer became loud and clear.

[17] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2026/02/msg00063.html



Cheers mates,

- --
Michael Lustfield
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEBs1j101ZjEpH5CyWA6iJGnZa0IUFAmmV/8EACgkQA6iJGnZa 0IWqJg/+Jtg1nEua3DRCrh5VOVGDcWWhv0xwaDDohwPisqc0qT2SUBbApdgQHfWP 07eABigjIHht7ISGSkCjqvlHqX4nLiwymUeTOTs37FkzsnzKUUh4pRThFYr6LRwJ XDONjO2YUon7ym2ZxLkplrZcl1kRPw6v6UEDLgIdXZzGdTb+GIrInLnpUXLrZOnK e9qOmyNXJqma9Q35b3c10Qjo/+Th/kKxRNN+ssQM31aQpOfaEcXQawFRczwtJ+jq uLAlJbVPORrmaC2gwn1WGoMrLWQx7GwX5uxi7Tqlj+tVkGfZ8rsUMIHJqVWZJiju n4nFDV61SqoBWP8EzfxmfyM+3grePwIT5YqTY/RK1MR5Vmb6ENb+Tji/5sUq7GGf RoGGp5fLswRuaQ3QYvIuW7GWSeGorZcBMmZe+GrLGTVguRsfAAeg7vvR+VcFloLE 0DRJEyRID1mMqFhJcwRAFtPSjv4GEUm9K+yxv+Brk46yiDQz972vk9RrE977UbmX dceLcLpiiLPyMa0fa6o2Cm1SS8tBcj+RICsxE0BzWP6ZBIN2A4WjtK/wv/W2zNdw OR/YW7lE+X4wE26W558BGK31nKehotdYQ1MojzNhoRV+NVCiuUxx4hlXcxQy5A59 kuB8Yux8huLOSOUWoAVEN3h3RCI55kWmyTY47dYtV2zVn7a+uzU=
=S1BE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.11
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)