1 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> Certainly. Closing lists won't stop the private abuse, nor is it intended to. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> What it would stop is this particular thread talking endlessly about it. |
6 |
> |
7 |
>> Closing a mailing list |
8 |
>> will not close such a debate; it will then just happen elsewhere. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> And that is the goal. |
11 |
|
12 |
So now we finally get to the point: |
13 |
The whole story has actually *nothing* to with Fred. |
14 |
|
15 |
It is about what I said in the very first posting: |
16 |
It is an attempt to suppress opinions, by taking away people an |
17 |
important channel to raise their voice. |
18 |
|
19 |
The whole Fred example was only a rhetorical trick: An attempt to find |
20 |
at least *one* example where you believe that the developers' opinion is |
21 |
undoubtfully the right one, an attempt to justify the ivory tower. |
22 |
|
23 |
This one example - it plays no role whether it is justified or whether |
24 |
there is another one - is completely suppressing the fact that in |
25 |
almost all cases on dev-ml (trivial "ACK" things aside) |
26 |
*are* clearly discussable (concerning technical topics) |
27 |
and *should* be discussed. |
28 |
In fact, all these *other* discussions are the actual purpose of dev-ml. |
29 |
|
30 |
Closing the channel simply excludes non-developers from these |
31 |
discussions dev-ml is made for. |
32 |
|
33 |
Concering Gentoo's reputation, you can be sure that this step will be |
34 |
only contraproductive: |
35 |
|
36 |
- In Fred's case anyway, because people with the opinion that something |
37 |
strange is going on with this case will see their opinion just confirmed; |
38 |
outsiders anyway. |
39 |
|
40 |
- For people not involved or not interested in Fred's case it is |
41 |
clearly even worse. From the outsider viewpoint as well. |
42 |
|
43 |
This closing harms Gentoo a lot: |
44 |
|
45 |
I am driven away from Gentoo by such an undemocratic step. |
46 |
Certainly I am not the only one: Others also already formulated |
47 |
similar opinions on this and the project mailing list, at least |
48 |
if you are able to read between the lines. |
49 |
|
50 |
> Could you take this debate to the appropriate place then? |
51 |
|
52 |
Do not worry, this is presumably my last post on the topic |
53 |
(soon I would not be able to post, anyway). |
54 |
|
55 |
I am aware that the undemocratic decision has already been made |
56 |
(BTW unsurprisingly in a not very democratic way), |
57 |
so it makes no sense to discuss about it further. |
58 |
|
59 |
My post was just a final attempt at least to mitigate the damage done |
60 |
by this decision by speaking for the only thing which can still be |
61 |
done purely technically: Blacklisting instead of whitelisting. |
62 |
|
63 |
With whitelisting you will only attract that type of non-developers |
64 |
who are willing to beg a gang to be a member of them. |
65 |
Of course, if a secondary aim should be to get only uncritical followers |
66 |
(or pretenders) and to drive away everybody else, whitelisting |
67 |
is the correct choice. |