| 1 |
On 01/22/2014 03:00 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> I don't want to appear rude, but when reading this entire mail all I see |
| 3 |
> is someone who has probably never had to do it for real. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> People are not machines. Volunteers really do not like having their |
| 6 |
> freely given time nullified and access removed because one person |
| 7 |
> thought it was deserved. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Well ... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
if these persons actively break things, and endanger others, *and* they |
| 12 |
don't respond to multiple verbal warnings/threats ... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
... what would you do? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Every workplace environment and most opensource projects have some |
| 17 |
mechanism to enforce sanity in such situations, so why not have it |
| 18 |
explicitly stated so that there's no one surprised when it triggers? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Do you realise the message that is sent by denying someone access? You |
| 21 |
> are saying that person is not good enough to work on Gentoo. Do you |
| 22 |
> really want to send that message? |
| 23 |
Yes. And I have no problem being the Evil Guy who pulls the trigger, |
| 24 |
err, presses the enter key. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
You are saying that *any* contribution should be accepted just to not |
| 27 |
hurt someones feelings. |
| 28 |
Bad news: I don't care about feelings. I care about facts, and results. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
The *chance* that this happens is luckily small enough, but it does make |
| 31 |
sense to have an established protocol for such cases. Otherwise any |
| 32 |
action will be considered "overstepping the boundaries" and/or "breaking |
| 33 |
the rules", and then there's a huge (social) fallout that could have |
| 34 |
easily been avoided. Like the discussion we're having now, only |
| 35 |
amplified a lot. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Vast wholescale breakage is very rare and not something you can base |
| 39 |
> policy on. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Black swan events are more common than optimists pray for |
Archives