Because of the conflict in bug #19730, could you please remove commit access on xkeyboard-config from Reşat SABIQ.
I support this request.
Resat's behaviour 19730 was IMO not acceptable, and resulted in more time wasted than if he had gone through the usual procedure of submitting a patch to svu.
Confirmed with a few others at FD.o.
Reşat your xkb commit bit has been revoked.
In the future please send changes to the relevant mailing list.
I just want to point out here, that i have always believed that this bug is nothing but a trick that Sergey used to try to sully my name.
The main facts from bug 19730 remain: Sergey's abusive behavior and high potential for conflict of interest for many reasons (a "theory" proven by his actions).
And I'd like to add a couple of things, now that i have found some time to follow up on several keyboard bugs.
1. The build issue in the 2nd check-in was Sergey's responsibility and not mine, because in the 2nd check-in i only tried to follow his bogus excuses for abusive behavior:
1.1. There was no build issue, and no other serious issue for that matter, in the 1st check-in, before Sergey's explicit abuses began.
1.2. He mentioned .po as a reason for revert a year ago, and so i didn't include it in my 2nd check-in.
1.3. Obviously, .po for a new language should be in the source, so that the language addition can be tested in its entirety prior to code freeze (frankly, prior to code being checked to begin with). It is this logical approach that allowed me to encounter and log bug http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21924 while i was preparing that check-in.
1.3.1. Even if someone continues to insist on .po files for new languages not being checked in, and thus the new locale not being testable until the last moment, IMHO the responsibility for any misunderstandings and issues arising from such a dubious approach is definitely shared by people advocating it (which doesn't include me).
2. This drew my attention earlier, but i think i haven't mentioned it yet, and it's worth mentioning: less that 2 hours after my 2nd check-in of the layouts, Sergey checked in the following:
This check-in resolves an issue that i used as an example of code that must not be reverted, but rather that should be corrected in git:
What it felt like to me, is that Sergey was trying to prevent me from checking in a fix for it myself, given that he of course knew that he already started the process of preventing any future contributions from me. And he didn't mention in git logs that i was the one who drew attention to this "issue" (worth reverting in Sergey's book, but just something to correct as usual in git in my book), which isn't a big deal on its own, but a bit more telling in light of item 3.
3. I have noticed that after my contributions began, a lot more people appear to be contributing to the project. This is an interesting finding, in the context of this bug. Of course, it is partly or entirely explained by the fact that Sergey plagiarized other people's contributions before my first check-in. I just went through several bugs before my first check-in, and stopped after finding 2 bugs where Sergey apparently, based on git log and diff of commit vs. somebody else's contribution, plagiarized others' contributions as his own:
The fact that in my commits the author and committer was me, rather than Sergey, appears to have made a (direct or indirect) difference in the interests of non-plagiarizm. :)
So i hope people involved here realize that it is not just me who's losing out from a prejudicial maintainer who really felt out-of-control from February to May of last year. And my main point is:
in a project like this that has far-reaching effects on languages and people throughout the world, no interference in the affairs of, and imposition on, languages and their users should be allowed,
otherwise these projects risk being used to enforce oppression of languages in the context of open-source software, which is completely unacceptable. Whomever you may consider more at fault between me and Sergey, I can only hope that you take with you that essential message, and stop abuse of endangered or oppressed languages when you see it, or when you see just a semblance of it, and prevent as much as possible even just the potential for such abuse and oppression.