Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009

[Thomas Anderson]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:34:48AM +0100, Steven J Long wrote:
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
>
> > Steven J Long wrote:
> >> Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> >>
> >> > This list is for technical discussions only.
> >> I look forward to the day when that actually happens, and we are not
> >> regaled with countless emails about "technical issues" that were solved 3
> >> years ago, accompanied by juvenile insults at anyone who might disagree.
> >>
> >
> > Speaking of juvenile insults, your last mails concerning my summary have
> > had their fair share of insults towards me(all unfounded and ridiculous).
> > Would you please stop that?
> >
> I still can't see any insults; I was actually doing my best to give you the
> benefit of the doubt. Clearly you are fairly immature, based on my
> interaction with you over the last 3 years, and you did indeed take part in
> a concerted political action, which was not at all what it was claimed to
> be.

There were no political actions ocurring, I was doing my job. As for insults, I
was referring to:

"This is inaccurate, and to be frank, a lie."

"And sorry, tanderson, but consider my words of support for your campaign
rescinded after the concerted nature of your part in the politicking." <--- Not
exactly an insult but sort of close considering it's not true; call it libel.

"You clearly have a year or two more of growing-up to do, minimum, AFAIC."

"Nice summaries though." Not exactly an insult though it was probably sarcastic.

And of course the insult in the last mail you sent: "Clearly you are fairly
immature" and ignoring the libel about political actions(which is both
unsubstantiated and untrue).

And other in general attitude problems against me.
> >> > Also, public mailing-lists
> >> > are not for discussing your personal issues.
> >> >
> >> It wasn't my personal issue; it was about an inaccurate summary and a
> >> Council member blatantly lying and using his position for partisan aims.
> >
> > The summary was not innacurate; If someone is banned, I put down the
> > reason given _at the time_ for the banning. That seems fairly
> > straightforward. There is nothing biased(or anything deserving being
> > called a 'lie') in that summary
>
> You weren't the Council member referred to. You really don't appear to have
> considered my point of view very much.

So if I don't agree with you and stand up for the work I've put into something I
merely "haven't" considered what you said? My work is on the line as is my image
of journalism and I certainly double check everything to make sure I am not in
the wrong.

> > I do my best at professional journalism(I am an amateur however) and your
> > remarks to the contrary show you haven't given thought to how much time
> > and effort I spend at making it unbiased and accurate.
> >
> You need to think about not simply putting one side of a story in order to
> maintain the appearance of impartiality. Which, as you took part in the
> politicking, you didn't have in any case.

Please, point out *how* I politicked(especially in my summary). I think you'd
be rather surprised at the outcome. Also point out how I could have been more
impartial so I can improve my process.

> As for your time and effort, you put that in because you want to. While I
> appreciate it, I also appreciate how much time and effort everyone else
> puts in too; most especially the users without whom nothing would get done.

You twisted that sentence of mine. I didn't say you should think twice about it
being innacurrate because I put a lot of work into the summary, I said it
because I had put a lot of work into trying to make it impartial.

> >> You can keep on doing things badly all you like; just expect to get
> >> picked up on it when you summarise it inaccurately in the archives.
> >
> > See above, especially the part saying "for what he called".
> >>
> I was answering the "censor him!" tendency that is so prevalent when Gentoo
> devs are being picked up on their behaviour and so reviled when it means
> disallowing constant poisonous trolling. IIRC the argument is that "it reads
> like 'lex ciaran'"; perhaps that's more an indication of how trollish ciaran
> actually behaves than a direct attack on him.

By that logic you should be silenced for what I know is trolling in this thread.
Think it's fair?


> >> Certainly seems to be what you're best at, after all. Ah oh yes, you're
> >> the person who stated user-rel wanted Council to review the decision,
> >> which they said they did not. Curious that you should ignore all the
> >> points about process and try to make out this is my "personal" issue and
> >> not an issue of borked process.
> >
> > I believe the Council was deciding only on what to do in #-council which
> > is as stated their turf. Any userrel issues are probably separate to this
> > problem.
> >
> Hmm firstly I was directly addressing one individual about his actions. He
> raised it; either let him answer as to his intent, or speak for yourself.

Well considering you were replying to *me* on the list it is a logical deduction
that you were talking to me. But sorry for that.
>
> Perhaps you should re-read and reconsider the process in light of what you
> now know about userrel not once requesting Council to review, but only for

The discussion as I saw it was _all_ about your ban in #-council, not having
anything to do with userrel actions. Note that in the interests of clarity I
even mentioned that the topic was about #-council in the topic of that part of
the summary. As stated, userrel does not decide who can be banned in #-council,
the council does which is what the council topic was about.

> >>
> >> As stated, summarise correctly, and even better, follow a more
> >> professional process, and this sub-topic would never have been raised.
> >
> > See above.
> >
> >> As it is, this is
> >> about the level of debate I expected; blame the messenger, and avoid our
> >> own problems. I am glad there's an election on.
> >
> > So am I, but your slandering of my platform is not appreciated at all.
> >
> Please make it clear where I have lied at all. As stated you did take part
> in a concerted political end-run around the devrel and userrel procedures.

How was I involved at all with devrel or userrel? That's a lie right there. For
other insults and slandering see the top of my mail.
>
> I've tried to take that as your ignorance of the situation; if you're saying
> you were fully cognizant of the process, then you have changed in the last
> 3 years even more than I thought. You really should consider the totality
> of what the other person is saying before you libel them.

I've not libeled anyone, stop saying I have without any proof.

> As I did in #-devrel AND #-userrel, I'd like to drop this now. As stated it
> was only about getting my side of events on the record, since I was given
> no opportunity in #-council and indeed zero warning that it was coming. If
> that is so hard to comprehend, might I suggest some downtime, as you sound
> quite burnt-out to me.

I'm not burnt out(though I'm going on vacation for a week), and please do not
say I am.
>
> I'll only respond to substantively new issues, and if it all possible I
> won't be responding on this thread again. If that offends, it's not
> intended.

Since most of what you have said in this thread is false or insults that
shouldn't be too hard.
> --
> #friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
>
>

-- 
---------
Thomas Anderson
Gentoo Developer
/////////
Areas of responsibility:
AMD64, Secretary to the Gentoo Council
---------