Launchpad itself

Dave Lentz https://launchpad.net/~dtl131 spamming and vandalizing https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fglrx-installer/+bug/1058040

Asked by penalvch

Dave Lentz https://launchpad.net/~dtl131 is spamming and vandalizing https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fglrx-installer/+bug/1058040 .

Dave has been knowingly spreading incorrect information about what AMD drivers support which products:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fglrx-installer/+bug/1058040/comments/38

which contradicts AMD's own website as noted earlier in the bug report:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fglrx-installer/+bug/1058040/comments/36

and keeps vandalizing the Bug Description and spamming those subscribed to the report. He is basing his mis-information on Wikipedia, which is not a primary resource. This is in spite of AMD's website directly contradicting his incorrect opinion and actions. As well, intentionally spreading mis-information, despite being explicitly educated to the contrary, is a violation of the Ubuntu Code of Conduct, which he signed. He is not being considerate of or being respectful with the Ubuntu community.

2) He is in knowing and flagrant violation of Ubuntu Bug Control, Ubuntu Bug Squad, and Ubuntu X.Org Team (maintainers of fglrx-installer) policy, of which he is a Ubuntu Bug Squad member:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/BestPractices#X.2BAC8-Reporting.Focus_on_One_Issue

He keeps marking https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fglrx-installer/+bug/1075035 a duplicate of https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fglrx-installer/+bug/1058040 , when not only no clear root problem technical relationship is present between the two reports, AMD's website contradicts his rationale for the dup'ing, he has been educated about this, he has already been explicitly requested not to do this, and did so anyways twice.

As well, the two reports cover different scenarios, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fglrx-installer/+bug/1075035 covers a card whose driver is under active focus by AMD with their newest release, while https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fglrx-installer/+bug/1058040 is about legacy cards not working in Quantal. He has been advised of this information, but has actively disregarded it.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter and I look forward to your response.

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Answered
For:
Launchpad itself Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
Laura Czajkowski (czajkowski) said : 		#1

This has been dealt with

Revision history for this message
Max Bowsher (maxb) said : 		#2

I'd like to put in a note of support for Dave Lentz here, who I feel has been erroneously suspended.

Whilst Dave did re-mark bug 1075035 as a dupe after Christopher un-duped it, and this was not helpful from a bug management point of view, this was in the context of a revert war in which Dave was attempting to enhance the bug description of bug 1058040 to include that it can apply to cards other than the Radeon HD 2xxx, 3xxx, 4xxx series, and Christopher was deleting Dave's additions to the bug description outright, rather than working to clarify the information.

Indeed, I subsequently attempted to re-introduce a re-worded form of Dave's edit to the bug, taking a more neutral stance and acknowledging some uncertainties - and Christopher removed the addition outright *again*.

For context, the overall situation is:
* AMD have dropped support for some hardware in newer driver versions, and identified it with a range of marketing names
* It seems that there are actually more boards affected than this, and chip identifiers have been suggested as an alternative way of identifying whether a board is affected
* But there seems to be some odd corner case where a chip family which seemed to be completely unsupported at first is actually supported in some variants
* Cue misunderstandings and arguments

So, whilst Dave did perform an unhelpful bug management operation, he was being frustrated by an undiplomatic response to his attempt to provide genuinely useful information. I do not believe there was any malicious intent as implied by the use of the
"spamming" and "vandalizing" in this complaint.

Can you help with this problem?

Provide an answer of your own, or ask penalvch for more information if necessary.

To post a message you must log in.