| 1 |
On 06/03/07, Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> expose@×××××××××××.net wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Dear list, |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Why not simply naming the "formal logic rules" for the "official venue |
| 8 |
> > where developers (and ex-developers and users) can talk out their |
| 9 |
> > disagreements" to be: |
| 10 |
> > 1. Anyone who is impolite get's kicked off. |
| 11 |
> > 2. Anyone who repeatedly and seemingly on purpose tries to harm the |
| 12 |
> > discussion will be kicked off. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Impolite: Do, under _no_ circumstances, use a word MTV would have to |
| 15 |
> mute, |
| 16 |
> > or that your grandmother (hopefully) wouldnt want to hear you say ;-) |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > Repeatedly: We are humans, we make faults. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > Seemingly: If this wouldnt be part of the rule, there would be endless |
| 21 |
> > debates on wether it was on purpose or not. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> I like the idea; i think it'd be a start just to focus on the first. It's |
| 24 |
> easier to define, or at least to know when someone's overstepped the mark. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> > Bryan Østergaard <kloeri@g.o> wrote: |
| 27 |
> >> Somehow a lot of people seems to think banning is the only possible |
| 28 |
> >> solution. I tend to think that's a horrible idea myself and most of |
| 29 |
> >> devrel backs me up on that. |
| 30 |
> > Of course it is a horrible idea, but isnt it better than seeing someone |
| 31 |
> > constantly insulting people, instead of being productive, functional, |
| 32 |
> > objective or at least polite? |
| 33 |
> > At the moment I feel like there is no real reason _not_ to insult |
| 34 |
> anyone, |
| 35 |
> > for those who like to do so, which has to be changed or values will be |
| 36 |
> > lost completely. It can even be fun to get rid of aggressions collected |
| 37 |
> > throughout the week at once, yet the gym is the correct place to do so, |
| 38 |
> > not this list. |
| 39 |
> > |
| 40 |
> ++ to that; the message that gets out is that gentoo thinks abusive |
| 41 |
> behaviour is acceptable. You have to have limits, and people need to be |
| 42 |
> told that others think they're crossing the line, or it'll degenerate. If |
| 43 |
> you don't ban at some point, whatever that is, then there's no sanction. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> -- |
| 47 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> I agree. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
I am a new Gentoo developer but I have worked on a number of other small |
| 52 |
projects. This list is a disgrace and most flames are nothing but |
| 53 |
showboating. If you have an issue then deal with it directly with whomever |
| 54 |
is causing the problem. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Writing cutting comments on the list with no other intention than to |
| 57 |
belittle or discredit a member of the community is unacceptable. *Even* if |
| 58 |
your comments happen correct. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Please, lets use -dev for actual development. Perhaps we can have -bitch or |
| 61 |
-flame for those who really need to vent or to write mails that they know |
| 62 |
are blatant flame fodder. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
-- |
| 65 |
/** |
| 66 |
* Gentoo |
| 67 |
* GPG : 0x2217D168 |
| 68 |
*/ |
Archives