1 |
Thomas Anderson wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Steven J Long wrote: |
4 |
>> Denis Dupeyron wrote: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> > This list is for technical discussions only. |
7 |
>> I look forward to the day when that actually happens, and we are not |
8 |
>> regaled with countless emails about "technical issues" that were solved 3 |
9 |
>> years ago, accompanied by juvenile insults at anyone who might disagree. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Speaking of juvenile insults, your last mails concerning my summary have |
13 |
> had their fair share of insults towards me(all unfounded and ridiculous). |
14 |
> Would you please stop that? |
15 |
> |
16 |
I still can't see any insults; I was actually doing my best to give you the |
17 |
benefit of the doubt. Clearly you are fairly immature, based on my |
18 |
interaction with you over the last 3 years, and you did indeed take part in |
19 |
a concerted political action, which was not at all what it was claimed to |
20 |
be. |
21 |
|
22 |
>> > Also, public mailing-lists |
23 |
>> > are not for discussing your personal issues. |
24 |
>> > |
25 |
>> It wasn't my personal issue; it was about an inaccurate summary and a |
26 |
>> Council member blatantly lying and using his position for partisan aims. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> The summary was not innacurate; If someone is banned, I put down the |
29 |
> reason given _at the time_ for the banning. That seems fairly |
30 |
> straightforward. There is nothing biased(or anything deserving being |
31 |
> called a 'lie') in that summary |
32 |
|
33 |
You weren't the Council member referred to. You really don't appear to have |
34 |
considered my point of view very much. |
35 |
|
36 |
<snip> |
37 |
> I do my best at professional journalism(I am an amateur however) and your |
38 |
> remarks to the contrary show you haven't given thought to how much time |
39 |
> and effort I spend at making it unbiased and accurate. |
40 |
> |
41 |
You need to think about not simply putting one side of a story in order to |
42 |
maintain the appearance of impartiality. Which, as you took part in the |
43 |
politicking, you didn't have in any case. |
44 |
|
45 |
As for your time and effort, you put that in because you want to. While I |
46 |
appreciate it, I also appreciate how much time and effort everyone else |
47 |
puts in too; most especially the users without whom nothing would get done. |
48 |
|
49 |
>> You can keep on doing things badly all you like; just expect to get |
50 |
>> picked up on it when you summarise it inaccurately in the archives. |
51 |
> |
52 |
> See above, especially the part saying "for what he called". |
53 |
>> |
54 |
I was answering the "censor him!" tendency that is so prevalent when Gentoo |
55 |
devs are being picked up on their behaviour and so reviled when it means |
56 |
disallowing constant poisonous trolling. IIRC the argument is that "it reads |
57 |
like 'lex ciaran'"; perhaps that's more an indication of how trollish ciaran |
58 |
actually behaves than a direct attack on him. |
59 |
|
60 |
The question is: if we're discussing someone else, would you allow that |
61 |
behaviour? Given the treatment I've had meted out for a lot less egregious |
62 |
insults, and never casually dropped into everyday discourse, the answer |
63 |
clearly is "No." |
64 |
|
65 |
So again, we come round to why ciaran is allowed to act in ways that no-one |
66 |
else is, despite having been kicked out twice. Frankly I don't care what |
67 |
the reason is; just don't pretend the CoC or any of the other rules |
68 |
you(collectively) have are anything more than a fig-leaf to doing w/e tf |
69 |
you want in any event. I mean now you're even arguing the Developer |
70 |
Council should allow non-devs to sit on it (and as ever it's simply to have |
71 |
an exception for ciaran, as his work is such a shining example.. no wait, |
72 |
it's evidently *not* that great. Why are we doing this again?) |
73 |
|
74 |
>> Or like, y'know, put your house in order/ keep that crap outta the |
75 |
>> archives. I don't have any more to say on it, but feel free to keep the |
76 |
>> flamefest going amongst yourselves. |
77 |
> |
78 |
> See above. |
79 |
> |
80 |
Ditto. |
81 |
|
82 |
>> Certainly seems to be what you're best at, after all. Ah oh yes, you're |
83 |
>> the person who stated user-rel wanted Council to review the decision, |
84 |
>> which they said they did not. Curious that you should ignore all the |
85 |
>> points about process and try to make out this is my "personal" issue and |
86 |
>> not an issue of borked process. |
87 |
> |
88 |
> I believe the Council was deciding only on what to do in #-council which |
89 |
> is as stated their turf. Any userrel issues are probably separate to this |
90 |
> problem. |
91 |
> |
92 |
Hmm firstly I was directly addressing one individual about his actions. He |
93 |
raised it; either let him answer as to his intent, or speak for yourself. |
94 |
|
95 |
Perhaps you should re-read and reconsider the process in light of what you |
96 |
now know about userrel not once requesting Council to review, but only for |
97 |
the ban to be rescinded. |
98 |
|
99 |
There certainly was no need for it to be discussed in full open Council like |
100 |
that, apart from trying to embarrass me and force a decision on the userrel |
101 |
bug in the wrong forum (while quietly ignoring the actual background to |
102 |
same.) |
103 |
|
104 |
>> |
105 |
>> As stated, summarise correctly, and even better, follow a more |
106 |
>> professional process, and this sub-topic would never have been raised. |
107 |
> |
108 |
> See above. |
109 |
> |
110 |
>> As it is, this is |
111 |
>> about the level of debate I expected; blame the messenger, and avoid our |
112 |
>> own problems. I am glad there's an election on. |
113 |
> |
114 |
> So am I, but your slandering of my platform is not appreciated at all. |
115 |
> |
116 |
Please make it clear where I have lied at all. As stated you did take part |
117 |
in a concerted political end-run around the devrel and userrel procedures. |
118 |
|
119 |
I've tried to take that as your ignorance of the situation; if you're saying |
120 |
you were fully cognizant of the process, then you have changed in the last |
121 |
3 years even more than I thought. You really should consider the totality |
122 |
of what the other person is saying before you libel them. |
123 |
|
124 |
As I did in #-devrel AND #-userrel, I'd like to drop this now. As stated it |
125 |
was only about getting my side of events on the record, since I was given |
126 |
no opportunity in #-council and indeed zero warning that it was coming. If |
127 |
that is so hard to comprehend, might I suggest some downtime, as you sound |
128 |
quite burnt-out to me. |
129 |
|
130 |
I'll only respond to substantively new issues, and if it all possible I |
131 |
won't be responding on this thread again. If that offends, it's not |
132 |
intended. |
133 |
-- |
134 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |