[gentoo-project] Re: Shutting down the Off the Wall

[desultory]

On 12/01/20 12:31, Aaron Bauman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 08:16:16AM -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 6:58 AM Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:07:53PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
>> It's my (subjective) belief that a good faith discussion with forum-mods
>> My point is more like "this belief that everyone dislikes OTW" is poorly
>> measured and poorly falsifiable. This point was also made on -core where it
>> was suggested to have a better basis for the decision to avoid
>> flip-flopping. If you end up with a rational basis then different people
>> can examine the situation and draw the same conclusions.
>>
>> Is the CoC a rational basis? I mean there is definitely subjectivity to it,
>> but I think it's clearly more of a shared belief than "I think X is toxic"
>> and there are fairly clear guidelines in the CoC today (and we could add
>> more.) We could ask questions like (quoting the CoC's unacceptable behavior
>> here):
>> Does this activity happen on OTW?
>>
>> Yeah I don't want to live in a world where I have to "do gentoo" in every
>> channel all the time. You and I have had numerous discussions of non-gentoo
>> topics on IRC, but I don't see anyone advocating for deleting IRC as a
>> medium. People talk about offtopic stuff. It's a thing that will happen and
>> will continue to happen..basically forever. So this policy where we must
>> only allow Gentoo topics is...I think it's a bit inane.
>>
>
> The reasoning is simply based on the fact that it is a hosted forum.
> Paid for by others who donate to us in good faith to support the
> distribution. If this entails such discussions as seen in OTW... I would
> be highly surprised. So, the question is quite a rhetorical one.
>
So, your opinion is that we should not use resources donated for a
specific purpose (hosting the forums) for that purpose, but we are free
to use resources donated to other entities for purposes entirely
disjoint from producing, maintaining, and supporting an operating system
(toolkit) because the resources that were donated to the entities that
are providing services to us are paid for by others? And you consider
that to be logically consistent? Even aside from the fact that the
hosting would be donated to the Gentoo Foundation, thus if the question
actually was one of suitable use of donated resources, the council is
not even the right body to be considering removing Off the Wall.

>> It's a question of scope. Are we deleting "OTW" or "OTW and polish OTW."
>>
>
> Is that what it is? I don't read/speak Polish.
>
>>>
>> I'm refuting an argument. The argument is that the OTW forum has 0 value.
>> I'm suggesting the value is non-zero.
>>
>
> Sure, but you are refuting it by stating that OTW does play a role and
> that role is to house all the things that don't belong.
>
Thereby making the forums, as a whole, distinctly less prone to
misappropriation than other channels of communication used by Gentoo,
whether hosted on systems managed by the infra team or donated to other
entities entirely.

>>
>>>
>>> Maybe our donors are objective too, but I doubt they would be happy with
>>> such a situation.
>>>
>>
>> Again though, is this a real argument or a boogeyman argument? "Our donors
>> might be unhappy with X, so you should stop doing X."
>> So I'd ask...are our donors unhappy? If they are, then sure, we can take
>> action! But I suspect the answer is "we have no idea what they think about
>> the forums, or OTW" and so again, it's not a great basis for action.
>>
>
> If you want to attempt quantifying the matter go for it. It is mostly a
> rhetorical question. If you cannot rationalize this on your own there is
> a larger concern.
>
Is your opinion really so self evident that it warrants impugning anyone
who so much as asks you to clearly state it? Even if it was, carrying
through with such retorts would still be against the code of conduct.

> Let's use an example here... if I donate to "Alec for President"
> and you go spend all my donations on ice cream. I may be a little angry,
> no? This is not the "good faith" I would be assuming by donating. I
> don't think we need to attempt to quantify this. Any amount spent
> or donated resource used is wrong.
>
Is our rhetorical "you" offended that campaigns provide food for their
volunteers, which is not necessarily of the most stringent dietary
value? Does our rhetorical "you" know that donuts and other assorted
"junk food" is typical fare for campaign staff? Would our rhetorical
"you" still be upset if they then found out that Alec for President
hosted a fundraiser in the form of an ice cream social, thereby
multiplying the value to the campaign of the funds which "you" had donated?

> There is a purpose to my donations which is to support the distro. Not make a
> cozy forum for people to rant/rave on about Hitler, politics, and conspiracy
> theories. It is antithetical.
>
By that argument, are we to now close the project list now that you have
proceeded to "rant/rave on about Hitler, politics, and conspiracy theories"?

> I suppose your next suggestion would be a document stating what donations
> should/could/would be used for?
>
Would it not be more productive, and less confrontational (again,
counter to the code of conduct which you claim to be supporting), to ask
instead of assembling a straw man?