1 |
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 23∶59 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1 |
3 |
> napisał: |
4 |
>> As noted, there is one: analyzing the actions of those who are being |
5 |
>> "attacked" to see why people are bothering to do it in the first |
6 |
>> place. I sincerely doubt the offensive parties are doing what they are |
7 |
>> doing without cause. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Most of the affected developers are perfectly aware of the purpose of |
10 |
> those attacks. If there was anything to be done to resolve the situation |
11 |
> peacefully, we'd have done it long time ago. However, we can't and are |
12 |
> not going to yield to people's unfounded demands based purely |
13 |
> on the pressure inflicted by their misbehavior. |
14 |
> |
15 |
|
16 |
You are presupposing they are attacks. If they are public, and on |
17 |
gentoo-dev, then why would you consider them attacks? Are you the only |
18 |
person who acts with reason or purpose? How do you determine someone |
19 |
else is not acting with those things? |
20 |
|
21 |
> I believe this is as far as I can answer you. Going beyond that goes |
22 |
> into public judgment of private issues which is unacceptable on this |
23 |
> mailing list. |
24 |
> |
25 |
|
26 |
You have now made the issue public by asking that the information be |
27 |
acted on. If you can not present it publicly, then do not ask anyone |
28 |
to act on it, and do not hold people to decisions or outcomes made |
29 |
using the information. |
30 |
|
31 |
>> But no, the Gentoo developers are always above reproach. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> This remark is highly inappropriate. |
34 |
> |
35 |
|
36 |
Multiple times I have had polite requests for some explanation of |
37 |
actions be ignored. In a few of them I can cite behavior that |
38 |
contradicts itself. What conclusion is left to me save that certain |
39 |
developers revel in being petty tyrants? |
40 |
|
41 |
>> > I'm sorry but the purpose of this thread is not to convince you that |
42 |
>> > the problems exist. If you haven't experienced them already, then it |
43 |
>> > would be polite of you to either accept them as a fact, or do some |
44 |
>> > research yourself. |
45 |
>> > |
46 |
>> |
47 |
>> Your job is not to convince me, personally, but the future reader of |
48 |
>> this list. If you have given up on doing so then you have admitted |
49 |
>> that you do not want to be held accountable for your actions because |
50 |
>> you do not feel you need to explain why you are doing what you are |
51 |
>> doing. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> It is quite ironic that you worry about a 'future reader' needing to be |
54 |
> convinced in this past post (presuming you have some infinite knowledge |
55 |
> of what kind of details would a 'future reader' consider satisfying) |
56 |
> and at the same time you clearly reject to search for any past posts |
57 |
> on the topic. |
58 |
> |
59 |
|
60 |
Most people consider evidence and fact-based reasoning satisfying. You |
61 |
can dispute this if you wish, but I'm not sure how far you will be |
62 |
able to take it. |
63 |
|
64 |
> Also, I should point out that you don't get to tell me what my job is. |
65 |
> If you believe this thread should contain such data, please collect it |
66 |
> yourself in your own time and include it in a reply. However, I should |
67 |
> point out that you should respect all the rules we're talking about. |
68 |
> I'd rather spend the time doing something that is of much greater |
69 |
> importance of Gentoo users than some potential decision that will |
70 |
> probably no longer be remembered in 12 months, except in snarky |
71 |
> comments. |
72 |
> |
73 |
|
74 |
If you do not want to convince people you are right, eventually you |
75 |
will have to accept a complete lack of credibility. |
76 |
|
77 |
I do not have such information and now I have learned you are actively |
78 |
keeping it from me and from everyone else who may be trying to form an |
79 |
opinion on this matter. |
80 |
|
81 |
>> > I understand that you might want to know things. However, it is |
82 |
>> > generally impolite if someone 'comes late to the party' and starts |
83 |
>> > shouting questions that the existing participants know answers to |
84 |
>> > already. This is distorting to the conversation at hand. |
85 |
>> > |
86 |
>> |
87 |
>> I am not shouting. I am politely, but pointedly, asking questions that |
88 |
>> you ostensibly should already have the answer to. If you do not have |
89 |
>> the answer, then I feel it is clear to future readers of the list that |
90 |
>> you are making decisions for nonsensical reasons. |
91 |
> |
92 |
> I should point out that your personal attacks are also unacceptable. |
93 |
> If you disagree with the proposal, then please focus on discussing facts |
94 |
> and not trying to prove your opponent's incompetence. |
95 |
> |
96 |
|
97 |
I regret that you see it as a personal attack, but I am simply trying |
98 |
to tell you how I expect most people will view the situation. You are |
99 |
asserting you are right with no evidence. No one has any reason to |
100 |
believe you. |
101 |
|
102 |
>> > People's private issues are not topic of this mailing list. It is |
103 |
>> > generally impolite and unprofessional to discuss them publicly. Please |
104 |
>> > don't do that. |
105 |
>> > |
106 |
>> |
107 |
>> If the messages are being posted to gentoo-dev then I don't see why |
108 |
>> you consider the issue private. At least one party intends it to be |
109 |
>> public, probably because it's not a personal attack and is related to |
110 |
>> Gentoo. |
111 |
> |
112 |
> One side being unprofessional does not excuse the other from being so. |
113 |
> It only causes very unfair 'community judgment' where community judges |
114 |
> based on abusive facts of one side where the other side is unable to |
115 |
> provide counter-arguments without violating the privacy rules. |
116 |
> |
117 |
|
118 |
"Unfair community judgement" is using secret evidence to dictate your actions. |
119 |
|
120 |
Respectfully, |
121 |
R0b0t1 |