1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
2 |
Hash: SHA1
|
3 |
|
4 |
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:13:53 -0400
|
5 |
Seemant Kulleen <seemant@g.o> wrote:
|
6 |
|
7 |
So I should cut it, but I'm leaving it so you see what I'm responding
|
8 |
to.
|
9 |
Seemant, thanks.
|
10 |
|
11 |
> On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:33 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
12 |
> |
13 |
> > *sigh* |
14 |
> |
15 |
> It seems impossible to have any sort of discussion with you (unless one |
16 |
> is in agreement with you, of course, and then one is "clear headed") |
17 |
> without eliciting a *sigh* -- I don't think it's particularly the |
18 |
> healthiest way to have one. If you simply don't like disagreement, then |
19 |
> please be clear about that. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> > Why is it that everyone always assumes everything the Council does is |
22 |
> > "out to get Ciaran" rather than something we see as a good global |
23 |
> > solution to our current problems? |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Well, it would be great if the council can clearly outline what exactly |
26 |
> our current problems are. Maybe if you presented those problems and |
27 |
> then presented the proposed solutions to them, things would be easier to |
28 |
> understand? |
29 |
> |
30 |
> |
31 |
> > Here's a little hint for all of you conspiracy theorists out there. |
32 |
> > |
33 |
> > If all we wanted was to get rid of Ciaran, we'd just have a fucking vote |
34 |
> > to get rid of Ciaran and make all of this *SO* much simpler on |
35 |
> > ourselves. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> This is again a disparaging and unhealthy way to have a discussion. I'm |
38 |
> going to request that if you will respond to my notes, please do so with |
39 |
> some modicum of civility and respect. If you find yourself unable to do |
40 |
> so, then please do not respond to me at all. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> > We're trying to solve the problem of people, *ALL* people, treating each |
43 |
> > other like complete crap on our lists. The "problem" has been an issue |
44 |
> > of discipline. We've simply got too many people who are too scared to |
45 |
> > take any actions to resolve these problems. Why do you think Developer |
46 |
> > Relations has all of these procedures and policies for retiring |
47 |
> > developers? Is it because we need all of that to determine if someone |
48 |
> > has crossed the line? No. It's because we have a large number of |
49 |
> > developers (or possibly even just a very vocal minority) who complain |
50 |
> > about every single damn thing anyone ever does and it has been much |
51 |
> > simpler to make up these ridiculous guidelines and rules to follow in an |
52 |
> > attempt to curb the dissenters than it is to just deal with them. |
53 |
> |
54 |
> Well, your own method of responding to my note is a good example of |
55 |
> treating others like crap. How do we solve that? The problem with |
56 |
> moderation is that nobody censors speech with which they agree, but |
57 |
> quick to censor that with which they don't. |
58 |
> |
59 |
> So, here we have an example of one of the possible problems that you |
60 |
> alluded to earlier: a vocal minority unable to pick its battles, and |
61 |
> which engages in endless nitpicking. Why not just have the "fucking |
62 |
> vote to get rid of [them] and make all of this *SO* much simpler on |
63 |
> ourselves" then? Why should the vast majority of people on this list |
64 |
> have to pay for what is, evidently, a minority? |
65 |
> |
66 |
> If, on the other hand, it's not a minority, then doesn't that indicate |
67 |
> that the issue is on a deeper level? And if so, wouldn't it be more |
68 |
> prudent to try and solve that one, instead? |
69 |
> |
70 |
> |
71 |
> > I say drop the rules to something simple that makes sense, boot the |
72 |
> > troublemakers, and ignore the dissenters. I'll gladly help anyone make |
73 |
> > up any procmail recipes they need to filter their mail. Let's get back |
74 |
> > to developing and leave the politics to Obama and Hillary. |
75 |
> |
76 |
> This is a little worrisome, you know. Perhaps you didn't mean this set |
77 |
> of statements to sound as all-encompassing as all that. Isn't dissent |
78 |
> and disagreement the result of differing points of view, which could |
79 |
> actually benefit Gentoo? |
80 |
> |
81 |
> My thought is this: everyone should try and evaluate their own behaviour |
82 |
> on this list, and the method in which they treat others. If each of us |
83 |
> actually thought about the effects of our attitudes, this discussion |
84 |
> might well be moot. |
85 |
> |
86 |
> Thanks, |
87 |
> |
88 |
> Seemant |
89 |
> |
90 |
> |
91 |
> |
92 |
|
93 |
Regards,
|
94 |
- --
|
95 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
|
96 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel)
|
97 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
98 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6-ecc01.6 (GNU/Linux)
|
99 |
|
100 |
iD8DBQFGmSCmQa6M3+I///cRAkgdAJ9iEiEccwXHhpobT30s7k8CTvf8JACdGMgd
|
101 |
1flKq6L+B4LhqrMnx9Zveic=
|
102 |
=qIVf
|
103 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |