[Libre-soc-bugs] [Bug 589] NLnet top-level gigabit crypto router 2021-02-052

[bugzilla-daemon at libre-soc.org]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=589

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|andy.miroshnikov at gmail.com, |2021-02-052 at nlnet.nl
                   |Jean-Paul.Chaput at lip6.fr    |

--- Comment #17 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> ---

Michiel Leenaars
to me, Bob
4 minutes agoDetails
Dear Luke,


i need *help* doing so.

This is what people have offered, and you deemed unnecessary.


 We can also bounce back the current payment requests, so you can make
new ones with the right links.

what on earth are you talking about, there are *NO* wrong links.

This goes back to the previous part of the sentence. If you have the
proof of the work and pointers to the consolidation of those separate
elements pointed out in the locations you've pointed us to (which are
scattered/distributed across the issue tracker), that is okay. If you
don't have the information there, it might be easier to consolidate the
information on the wiki/web page and point directly there.

So the offer was for us to clear out the existing RfPs, so you would be
able to make new payment requests with the information needed.

We cannot be "chasing the chain" [1] at this point.

Eg. leaving the work in place after a comment like "should we consider
this done due to running out of time" (also [1]) without the work being
consolidated somewhere isn't a proper closing.

[1] https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=785#c13

The project is building a Gigabit Router, and it should be clear at the
end of the project where the work stands and where any moving part goes.
The same holds for the other project.


what works for me is to be ASKED QUESTIONS, to GUIDE me
through the process of getting the answers you need.

There is no opportunity for that, nor are the conditions you sketch
acceptable or reasonable. I suggest you organise matters at your end
such that someone else will do this for you, or with you.


absolutely not. i will remove the access rights of anyone
that attempts to do so.

In that case, there might be little point of going on with the above -
we will not accept your abuse of others in an official deliverable. This
constitutes multiple violations of the IEEE code of conduct to which all
grantees are bound as per the Memorandum of Understanding.

I would strongly urge you to reconsider, as this crosses professional
and legal boundaries and would prevent payment.

We will not do back and forth messages about this anymore, this isn't a
negotiation. Please only notify us when the work is completed, for us to
look at the cleaned up deliverables. Please ask someone you trust to
clarify our requests, and if need be these people can ask us for
clarification. The next message you send to us will trigger the final
review of these deliverables - and if the work isn't completed (or at
least considerably approved) at that point we will close the dossier.

Best,
Michiel

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.