Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: Daniel Robbins Controversy Unfairly Reported in GMN

[brant williams]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



Aren't there more important things to discuss here?  Do you guys really 
have to bicker about this shit on the list?


brant williams
FCAA CDCA 20BC 3925 D634  F5C4 7420 6784 4DEB 6002



On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:

> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 03:28:48 -0500
> From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
> To: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
> Cc: Square Bottle <squarebottle@×××××.com>
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: Daniel Robbins Controversy Unfairly Reported in
>     GMN
>
> On Monday 21 January 2008, Square Bottle wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 2008 8:56 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:
>>> a few things:
>>>  - fix your top posting (in other words, stop doing it)
>>
>> It was an entirely new topic actually.
>
> that is no excuse for top posting
>
>>>  - dont hijack existing threads
>>
>> Again, it was an entirely new topic. You surely noticed that it had a
>> brand new subject and everything. I accidentally left a different
>> quote at the bottom because I used a different email to quickly set it
>> up to send to the list, but this should have been the very last thing
>> for you to see anyway.
>
> and ?  you've supported my point: you knowingly hijacked an existing thread.
> you dont click an existing thread, hit reply all, change subject and delete
> the body as that will not change the reply headers.  your e-mail client was
> intelligent and kept all of the relevant headers.  to start a new thread, you
> write a new e-mail, you dont reply to any other.
>
>>> no attempt was made to summarize anything at all.  the article merely
>>> linked to all existing posts made by Gentoo developers.
>>
>> They chose to use some opinion posts from developers to summarize the
>> debate, but only ended up giving one side of the story. I don't really
>> know how you can say there was no attempt to summarize it, because
>> clearly something was meant to be reported, or else it would not have
>> made it into GMN which is itself supposed to summarize what's going on
>> in the big world of Gentoo.
>
> listing reactions is not a summary, it's a listing of reactions.
>
>>> if no Gentoo developer made
>>> a post that supported Daniel's proposal, then it isnt exactly possible to
>>> link to it now is it ?
>>
>> Then the editor probably should have reconsidered how to deliver the
>> information. Also, I sort of doubt that there aren't any gentoo
>> developers at all on the other side. In any case, like I originally
>> said, it's entirely possibly that it was just an unintentional
>> mistake. But it still happened.
>
> where's the threads ?  list a single Gentoo developer that was left out and
> it'll get added.  you're making something out of nothing.
>
>>> at any rate, the general opinion was reflected in the
>>> aforementioned blog posts.
>>
>> Actually, no, the general opinion not only wasn't reflected, but it
>> wasn't even talked about, which is a big part of why I was upset. The
>> general opinion is that Daniel coming back would be a good thing, as
>> evidenced by the overwhelming majority of people that voted in favor
>> of him coming back. Perhaps among developers the percentage is
>> different (it sure seems like the developers have the opposite opinion
>> of the community at large), but we don't know for sure exactly how it
>> breaks down. The fact of the matter is that there are two sides, and
>> one side has a very clear majority of support from the general
>> community, and this side was not at all represented. If you are going
>> to post opinion pieces from one side, you must post opinion pieces
>> from the other side. Part of being a reporter is going out and getting
>> quotes to represent all sides when trying to tell the news.
>
> it's a list of all Gentoo developers and it reflects the general developer
> opinion.  no other things were listed.  implying this was intentional or had
> some agenda is ridiculous.  if you'd like to see more information in the GWM,
> you should have e-mailed the GWM feedback list exactly like the newsletter
> said to.  it's pretty simple:
>
> To: gmn-feedback@g.o
> Subject: About "Reaction on ...."
> Body:
> Hi!  Could you include some links to the forums/mailing lists where the offer
> was discussed ?  Here's some example links:
> http://........../
> http://........../
>
> complaining on the -nfp list is not the place for it
>
>>> taking a yes/no poll is garbage as the options
>>> are garbage.  you cant approach the issue that way.
>>
>> No, but it's loads better than leaving the other side out completely
>> at least. The poll at least showed the feelings of the general
>> community, and proved that there were two sides. I think that the poll
>> would be good if it was used in a supplementary manner to other
>> information, but I agree that it should not be used by itself. But I
>> would not call it complete garbage at all. It says quite a bit about a
>> lot of things, and I'd be worried if it was completely ignored.
>
> frankly, i dont think a yes/no poll on the topic is relevant at all.  users
> may want to see a bunch of different things changed, but saying "we want
> drobbins!" is meaningless as it does not represent any of the underlying
> desires.  all they're really voting for is "we'd like things
> different/better".  great, we already knew that.
> -mike
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHlJADdCBnhE3rYAIRCN0pAKCVTvMfh0v4z0crzOuKF4aZig9+GgCeJMHq
Q1AZmt78gzek2q9X8rtDK38=
=Gjns
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list