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

[Alec Warner]

Dear god, if you want argue to death do it in private.

-A

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Thomas Anderson<gentoofan23@g.o> wrote:
> 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 rescinded after the concerted nature of your part in the politicking."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
> ---------
>