1 |
On 12/01/20 12:31, Aaron Bauman wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 08:16:16AM -0800, Alec Warner wrote: |
3 |
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 6:58 AM Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:07:53PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote: |
6 |
>> It's my (subjective) belief that a good faith discussion with forum-mods |
7 |
>> My point is more like "this belief that everyone dislikes OTW" is poorly |
8 |
>> measured and poorly falsifiable. This point was also made on -core where it |
9 |
>> was suggested to have a better basis for the decision to avoid |
10 |
>> flip-flopping. If you end up with a rational basis then different people |
11 |
>> can examine the situation and draw the same conclusions. |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> Is the CoC a rational basis? I mean there is definitely subjectivity to it, |
14 |
>> but I think it's clearly more of a shared belief than "I think X is toxic" |
15 |
>> and there are fairly clear guidelines in the CoC today (and we could add |
16 |
>> more.) We could ask questions like (quoting the CoC's unacceptable behavior |
17 |
>> here): |
18 |
>> Does this activity happen on OTW? |
19 |
>> |
20 |
>> Yeah I don't want to live in a world where I have to "do gentoo" in every |
21 |
>> channel all the time. You and I have had numerous discussions of non-gentoo |
22 |
>> topics on IRC, but I don't see anyone advocating for deleting IRC as a |
23 |
>> medium. People talk about offtopic stuff. It's a thing that will happen and |
24 |
>> will continue to happen..basically forever. So this policy where we must |
25 |
>> only allow Gentoo topics is...I think it's a bit inane. |
26 |
>> |
27 |
> |
28 |
> The reasoning is simply based on the fact that it is a hosted forum. |
29 |
> Paid for by others who donate to us in good faith to support the |
30 |
> distribution. If this entails such discussions as seen in OTW... I would |
31 |
> be highly surprised. So, the question is quite a rhetorical one. |
32 |
> |
33 |
So, your opinion is that we should not use resources donated for a |
34 |
specific purpose (hosting the forums) for that purpose, but we are free |
35 |
to use resources donated to other entities for purposes entirely |
36 |
disjoint from producing, maintaining, and supporting an operating system |
37 |
(toolkit) because the resources that were donated to the entities that |
38 |
are providing services to us are paid for by others? And you consider |
39 |
that to be logically consistent? Even aside from the fact that the |
40 |
hosting would be donated to the Gentoo Foundation, thus if the question |
41 |
actually was one of suitable use of donated resources, the council is |
42 |
not even the right body to be considering removing Off the Wall. |
43 |
|
44 |
>> It's a question of scope. Are we deleting "OTW" or "OTW and polish OTW." |
45 |
>> |
46 |
> |
47 |
> Is that what it is? I don't read/speak Polish. |
48 |
> |
49 |
>>> |
50 |
>> I'm refuting an argument. The argument is that the OTW forum has 0 value. |
51 |
>> I'm suggesting the value is non-zero. |
52 |
>> |
53 |
> |
54 |
> Sure, but you are refuting it by stating that OTW does play a role and |
55 |
> that role is to house all the things that don't belong. |
56 |
> |
57 |
Thereby making the forums, as a whole, distinctly less prone to |
58 |
misappropriation than other channels of communication used by Gentoo, |
59 |
whether hosted on systems managed by the infra team or donated to other |
60 |
entities entirely. |
61 |
|
62 |
>> |
63 |
>>> |
64 |
>>> Maybe our donors are objective too, but I doubt they would be happy with |
65 |
>>> such a situation. |
66 |
>>> |
67 |
>> |
68 |
>> Again though, is this a real argument or a boogeyman argument? "Our donors |
69 |
>> might be unhappy with X, so you should stop doing X." |
70 |
>> So I'd ask...are our donors unhappy? If they are, then sure, we can take |
71 |
>> action! But I suspect the answer is "we have no idea what they think about |
72 |
>> the forums, or OTW" and so again, it's not a great basis for action. |
73 |
>> |
74 |
> |
75 |
> If you want to attempt quantifying the matter go for it. It is mostly a |
76 |
> rhetorical question. If you cannot rationalize this on your own there is |
77 |
> a larger concern. |
78 |
> |
79 |
Is your opinion really so self evident that it warrants impugning anyone |
80 |
who so much as asks you to clearly state it? Even if it was, carrying |
81 |
through with such retorts would still be against the code of conduct. |
82 |
|
83 |
> Let's use an example here... if I donate to "Alec for President" |
84 |
> and you go spend all my donations on ice cream. I may be a little angry, |
85 |
> no? This is not the "good faith" I would be assuming by donating. I |
86 |
> don't think we need to attempt to quantify this. Any amount spent |
87 |
> or donated resource used is wrong. |
88 |
> |
89 |
Is our rhetorical "you" offended that campaigns provide food for their |
90 |
volunteers, which is not necessarily of the most stringent dietary |
91 |
value? Does our rhetorical "you" know that donuts and other assorted |
92 |
"junk food" is typical fare for campaign staff? Would our rhetorical |
93 |
"you" still be upset if they then found out that Alec for President |
94 |
hosted a fundraiser in the form of an ice cream social, thereby |
95 |
multiplying the value to the campaign of the funds which "you" had donated? |
96 |
|
97 |
> There is a purpose to my donations which is to support the distro. Not make a |
98 |
> cozy forum for people to rant/rave on about Hitler, politics, and conspiracy |
99 |
> theories. It is antithetical. |
100 |
> |
101 |
By that argument, are we to now close the project list now that you have |
102 |
proceeded to "rant/rave on about Hitler, politics, and conspiracy theories"? |
103 |
|
104 |
> I suppose your next suggestion would be a document stating what donations |
105 |
> should/could/would be used for? |
106 |
> |
107 |
Would it not be more productive, and less confrontational (again, |
108 |
counter to the code of conduct which you claim to be supporting), to ask |
109 |
instead of assembling a straw man? |