| 1 |
On 06/19/19 17:20, David Seifert wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 14:06 -0400, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:38 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> |
| 4 |
>> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 08:03 +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 20:33:09 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>>> On Tue, 2019-06-18 at 19:20 +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:43:05 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 9 |
>>>>>>> On Sun, 2019-06-16 at 23:00 +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 10 |
>>>>>>>> Only active Gentoo developers who are also Foundation |
| 11 |
>>>>>>>> members may be |
| 12 |
>>>>>>>> nominated. [1] |
| 13 |
>>>>>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>>>>>> Nominations MUST be made by posting to |
| 15 |
>>>>>>>> gentoo-nfp@l.g.o, and |
| 16 |
>>>>>>>> the nominated candidate must accept not later than the |
| 17 |
>>>>>>>> end of the |
| 18 |
>>>>>>>> nomination period. |
| 19 |
>>>>>>> |
| 20 |
>>>>>>> Ok, let's try someone else. I nominate: |
| 21 |
>>>>>>> |
| 22 |
>>>>>>> David Seifert (soap) |
| 23 |
>>>>>>> Mikle Kolyada (zlogene) |
| 24 |
>>>>>> |
| 25 |
>>>>>> You violated the rules: |
| 26 |
>>>>>> Nominations MUST be made by posting to |
| 27 |
>>>>>> gentoo-nfp@l.g.o |
| 28 |
>>>>>> |
| 29 |
>>>>>> But you sent them to gentoo-project@l.g.o mail |
| 30 |
>>>>>> list. |
| 31 |
>>>>>> Hereby they are not valid. Please perform your duty properly |
| 32 |
>>>>>> and |
| 33 |
>>>>>> send nominations to the aforementioned NFP mail list. |
| 34 |
>>>>>> |
| 35 |
>>>>> |
| 36 |
>>>>> You could also have understood it was a honest mistake and be |
| 37 |
>>>>> nice about |
| 38 |
>>>>> it. But I suppose that's too much to expect from a ComRel |
| 39 |
>>>>> member. |
| 40 |
>>>> |
| 41 |
>>>> I politely pointed out your mistake and nicely asked you to fix |
| 42 |
>>>> it. |
| 43 |
>>>> I even used the word "please". I honestly don't see what was not |
| 44 |
>>>> nice about my previous e-mail. Maybe we have a language barrier |
| 45 |
>>>> issue here. |
| 46 |
>>>> |
| 47 |
>>>> My comrel membership has nothing to do with this discussion and |
| 48 |
>>>> I'm participating in it as a common Gentoo developer with my |
| 49 |
>>>> comrel |
| 50 |
>>>> hat off. |
| 51 |
>>>> |
| 52 |
>>> |
| 53 |
>>> Do you really believe that a ComRel member (read: a person whose |
| 54 |
>>> duty |
| 55 |
>>> involves judging other people's behavior) can just take ComRel hat |
| 56 |
>>> off |
| 57 |
>>> and stop caring about providing exemplary behavior? Following that |
| 58 |
>>> logic, I could join ComRel claiming that all the things I've said |
| 59 |
>>> and done were 'with my comrel hat off' (since I don't have any)! |
| 60 |
>>> |
| 61 |
>>> I understand that there might be a language barrier. However, |
| 62 |
>>> since you |
| 63 |
>>> decide to perform a very specific and important role, I'm afraid |
| 64 |
>>> you |
| 65 |
>>> need to learn to use English in a way that's actually polite rather |
| 66 |
>>> than |
| 67 |
>>> using the excuse of a language barrier. |
| 68 |
>>> |
| 69 |
>>> Let me explain. |
| 70 |
>>> |
| 71 |
>>> A neutral (i.e. not really polite but acceptable) way of saying |
| 72 |
>>> that |
| 73 |
>>> would be to say 'you have posted the nominations to the wrong |
| 74 |
>>> list'. |
| 75 |
>>> That's plain and factual. |
| 76 |
>>> |
| 77 |
>>> You said 'you violated the rules' which is an |
| 78 |
>>> accusation. Accusations |
| 79 |
>>> tend to render one as guilty of doing something very |
| 80 |
>>> bad. Accusations |
| 81 |
>>> are not polite. |
| 82 |
>>> |
| 83 |
>>> Furthermore, 'perform your duty properly' is passive |
| 84 |
>>> aggressive. Adding |
| 85 |
>>> 'please' doesn't make it any more polite -- in fact, given just |
| 86 |
>>> before |
| 87 |
>>> a insulting statement it may have the exact opposite effect. |
| 88 |
>>> |
| 89 |
>>> The polite way of saying that would be to strip the first part |
| 90 |
>>> of the sentence and just say 'please send nominations ...' In |
| 91 |
>>> fact, |
| 92 |
>>> as you can see the passive aggressive part is completely |
| 93 |
>>> unnecessary to |
| 94 |
>>> convey the meaning, so what's the purpose of adding it besides |
| 95 |
>>> intentionally offending someone? |
| 96 |
>> |
| 97 |
>> As a native English speaker I agree with Michał's assessment. |
| 98 |
>> |
| 99 |
> |
| 100 |
> so do I. |
| 101 |
> |
| 102 |
> |
| 103 |
> |
| 104 |
Since, apparently, all native speakers of English are now supposed to |
| 105 |
opine on this, here goes. |
| 106 |
|
| 107 |
As a native speaker of English, I do not agree that mgorny's reply to |
| 108 |
bircoph was warranted. He replied to a statement of fact, and request to |
| 109 |
actually follow published rules by smearing an entire team. |
| 110 |
|
| 111 |
Was bircoph's message the epitome of polite and deferential writing? No. |
| 112 |
Is there any reason that it needed to be? Also no. Was it as bad as |
| 113 |
comments regularly made by mgorny on this and other mailing lists? |
| 114 |
Certainly not, unless you somehow consider being brusque to be worse |
| 115 |
than actively belittling or indeed libelous. Would I have taken issue |
| 116 |
with mgorny's initial reply had he left as only the first sentence and |
| 117 |
resending the nominations to the correct list? No, bircoph's message |
| 118 |
could be taken as being mildly rude and just because mgorny has |
| 119 |
regularly failed to avoid doing the same, and indeed worse, does not |
| 120 |
mean that he cannot ask others to do better. Is there any sensible |
| 121 |
reason to make a fuss over this? Absolutely not, yet here we are with |
| 122 |
yet another tempest in a teapot on the lists. |
Archives