1 |
Hello, |
2 |
|
3 |
First of all, I'm really sorry to see that this mail doesn't seem to |
4 |
achieve the desired affect of making the nominees think twice about what |
5 |
they do. On the other hand, it seems that you've chosen that this is |
6 |
indeed the face you'd like us to see. This is really sad. |
7 |
|
8 |
If you read my mail, you'd notice that there are no names there. Even |
9 |
if you think it's obvious who I'm concerned about (it isn't to |
10 |
bystanders), the major difference is that if someone tries to look you |
11 |
up (say, a potential employer), he is unlikely to find my mail. |
12 |
On the other hand, you've chosen to tarnish my reputation in a way |
13 |
that's easily found. It's sad. |
14 |
|
15 |
|
16 |
On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 15:50 +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: |
17 |
> someone is running his campaign again like previous years [1]. |
18 |
|
19 |
I have concerns about the people representing the distribution I've |
20 |
dedicated a lot of effort to. Is that forbidden? Are Council members |
21 |
beyond reproach? |
22 |
|
23 |
> |
24 |
> First he attacked project members working for Sony [2], |
25 |
|
26 |
Firstly, why do you consider that an attack? It is a legitimate concern |
27 |
about conflicts of interest, and as you can easily see there are other |
28 |
developers in Gentoo who share the concern to some degree. You can |
29 |
disagree with it but having a different opinion than somebody else's |
30 |
does not seem to me to be 'attacking' that person. |
31 |
|
32 |
Secondly, I don't see why you're singling out one particular company. |
33 |
My mail certainly doesn't do that, so it seems that you are putting |
34 |
words in my mouth, and I don't even understand to what purpose. |
35 |
|
36 |
> then he started |
37 |
> to attack Patrick and now, the person who shared his idea that Gentoo |
38 |
> should be ruled by a triumvirate [3] which he later declared as an |
39 |
> 'out-of-season' April fool after getting tremendous backlash |
40 |
|
41 |
Firstly, it was intended as a joke. You can believe it or not but |
42 |
I think you know me enough to realize that I wouldn't seriously consider |
43 |
this proposal possible within Gentoo. Why would I push for something |
44 |
that could risk putting Gentoo in hands of someone disagreeable? |
45 |
|
46 |
Secondly, I would suggest you read again wrt 'tremendous backslash'. |
47 |
The proposal got much more support than I expected. This pretty |
48 |
clearly suggests that people see that the things as they are now are far |
49 |
from perfect. |
50 |
|
51 |
> is digging |
52 |
> up old stuff about me in hope people have forgotten the details about. |
53 |
|
54 |
...and I thought the second part was just last Saturday. I must be |
55 |
being delusional then. |
56 |
|
57 |
> On 2020-06-26 12:47, Michał Górny wrote: |
58 |
> > Today, I would like to ask: do you think that Council members should |
59 |
> > lead the community by example? Should their reputation be untainted, |
60 |
> > should they be able to withhold their anger even when they believe they |
61 |
> > have reasons enough to attack others? Should they not participate |
62 |
> > in flames, unless only to extinguish them? |
63 |
> |
64 |
> You are demanding that council members should participate in mailing |
65 |
> list discussions in the past [1]. But when someone is doing that and |
66 |
> don't agree with you, you are immediately attacking people (you were |
67 |
> told more than once that it is very hard to discuss with you). |
68 |
|
69 |
Don't you think that generalizations are harmful? Especially when one |
70 |
tries really hard to make the other party look bad and filters the data |
71 |
into the cases that support his cause. |
72 |
|
73 |
> And if |
74 |
> they reply to that attack in *any* way you blame them for participating |
75 |
> in flame wars. So how should that work? |
76 |
|
77 |
I don't really know what you're referring to. I suspect you might think |
78 |
of something else than I was referring to. However, in general don't |
79 |
you think that elected public representatives of Gentoo should show |
80 |
higher standards than lowly developers who resigned from political |
81 |
positions? |
82 |
|
83 |
> > Is it considered acceptable that a nominee for election calls other |
84 |
> > developers inhumane or delusional on the public mailing lists? Is it |
85 |
> > good that he throws false accusations without verifying them? |
86 |
> |
87 |
> The exact words I used [4] were |
88 |
> |
89 |
> > You are lacking humanity. |
90 |
> |
91 |
> I am curious why you bring this up again given that it was resolved and |
92 |
> parts of Proctor did their job. Anyway, like you know, I am not a native |
93 |
> English speaker. It's also not a secret that my English is not good at |
94 |
> all. Once I was made aware that someone misunderstood what I wrote I |
95 |
> clarified my words. But I still stick to my statement (meaning) today. |
96 |
> And unfortunately the last year has confirmed all of this: |
97 |
> |
98 |
> May I remind you that everyone in this project should basically share |
99 |
> same goals and agreed on same code of conduct? Tell me, you as someone |
100 |
> who is really good in technical writing and almost perfect compared to |
101 |
> myself in using English language, why you have to use terms like |
102 |
> "exhibit" [5] which Cambridge dictionary explains as |
103 |
> |
104 |
> > a thing used as evidence (= proof that something is true) in a trial |
105 |
> |
106 |
> What is Gentoo for you? I hope most Gentoo developers agree with me that |
107 |
> words like that aren't appropriate to describe *anything* in Gentoo. |
108 |
> Heck, why are you even creating *cases* against people sharing same |
109 |
> goals and agreed on same code of conduct? |
110 |
|
111 |
Firstly, it was never my intention to offend anyone using that word, |
112 |
and I still don't really understand why people nitpick at that. As |
113 |
you're perfectly aware, I'm not a native speaker either and it is common |
114 |
for us, non-native speakers, not to be aware of specific associations of |
115 |
some terms. I have thought it sounds better than 'example'. I never |
116 |
expected to be bashed about that single word. |
117 |
|
118 |
Secondly, I would like to remind you that discussing restricted bugs |
119 |
on public mailing lists is not appropriate. |
120 |
|
121 |
> Tell us why you are the |
122 |
> reporter of most ComRel bugs in last 3 years and are even subject of |
123 |
> most bugs filed by others. |
124 |
|
125 |
I'm not even sure how I'm supposed to answer to that. This single |
126 |
paragraph poses so many problems, I'm not even sure where to start. |
127 |
|
128 |
I am aware that some people were unhappy with me but I had no reasons to |
129 |
assume what you're saying. Nor I really understand how you could be in |
130 |
possession of such data, given that you're not a member of ComRel. |
131 |
|
132 |
This either means you've obtained access to restricted data that |
133 |
shouldn't be available to you, or you're guessing (?) from incomplete |
134 |
data. Both options are problematic: the former sounds like an abuse |
135 |
of power, the latter sounds like a quick way towards slander. |
136 |
|
137 |
Furthermore, whether this is true or not, I'm pretty sure we aren't |
138 |
supposed to discuss restricted ComRel bugs on a public mailing list. |
139 |
So why are you doing that? |
140 |
|
141 |
Now, as one of the Bugzilla admins I could technically access ComRel |
142 |
bugs and verify that. However, I've never done that as I consider that |
143 |
an abuse of power. |
144 |
|
145 |
> Tell us why you are collecting stuff against other project members at |
146 |
> all. This is crazy. We are on the same project. We should share same |
147 |
> goals. We agreed on the same code of conduct. When you feel the need to |
148 |
> do anything like that then anything else went already wrong. I mean |
149 |
> *really* wrong. |
150 |
|
151 |
Your claim sounds like I'm proactively collecting some 'stuff' against |
152 |
others. This is not true. Even if I wanted to, don't you think I have |
153 |
better things to do? I can't manage my ever-growing backlog, |
154 |
and the last thing I need is to monitor the activity of other |
155 |
developers. |
156 |
|
157 |
Now, if you're asking why I'm supporting my complaints against actions |
158 |
of other developers, then isn't the answer obvious? Last I checked, QA |
159 |
is supposed to work based on evidence and not unproven judgment. This |
160 |
means that if some developer is repeatedly causing problems and QA needs |
161 |
to act on it, it is necessary to collect some examples of these |
162 |
problems. However, believe me, I've never really 'digged' into stuff -- |
163 |
whenever I felt like QA really needs to act, I've been literally hit |
164 |
with the problematic commits. Because they actually broke stuff, |
165 |
because they caused warnings, because they affected my packages... |
166 |
|
167 |
> Please tell us why you are attacking new Gentoo user posting to our |
168 |
> public mailing list [6] for the first time? |
169 |
|
170 |
This was a misunderstanding, and it was resolved. Unless I'm mistaken, |
171 |
there are no hard feelings there. Can you say the same of your attacks? |
172 |
|
173 |
> > Is it fine that yet another nominee runs an election campaign focused |
174 |
> > on attacking other developers, and apparently trying to get votes |
175 |
> > by finding 'a common enemy'? |
176 |
> |
177 |
> ...said the one who has the longest track record of negative campaigning |
178 |
> in Gentoo for how many years? Heck, why do have to do negative |
179 |
> campaigning at all in a project like Gentoo? This is soooo wrong and |
180 |
> makes me very sad to see. |
181 |
|
182 |
We do what we believe the best for the project. If I believe that |
183 |
a particular person has proven that he isn't a suitable candidate for |
184 |
a Council member yet he decides to stand for the election, how can |
185 |
I share my opinion positively? It's something that's negative by its |
186 |
sole nature. |
187 |
|
188 |
It's nothing personal. It is just a concern for the fate |
189 |
of the project. It is a concern that what is a verbal attack |
190 |
on a mailing list today will turn into bias during the Council meetings, |
191 |
and eventually into abuse of power. |
192 |
|
193 |
> > Should such people become the public faces of Gentoo? Or should they |
194 |
> > maybe be professional enough to withdraw their candidacy after |
195 |
> > discrediting themselves in the middle of election? |
196 |
> |
197 |
> If you or anyone else don't like that I don't accept the behavior I |
198 |
> listed above and that I won't keep my mouth shut whenever I am concerned |
199 |
> how we as project interact with each other because I am somehow |
200 |
> representing Gentoo, do NOT vote for me. |
201 |
> |
202 |
> The society itself is already brutalized. It is time to no longer |
203 |
> tolerate such behavior. |
204 |
|
205 |
Don't you think that it's better to improve the quality of |
206 |
communications by providing a good example rather than multiplicating |
207 |
the bad behavior? Usually violence leads to more violence. Well, |
208 |
unless the goal is to hope that one person takes one step too much first |
209 |
and the other gets the excuse to enforce disciplinary measures. |
210 |
|
211 |
Don't you think we are very much alike? I've been 'bullying |
212 |
the bullies' too in the past. I didn't ever consider it the right thing |
213 |
to do, though. It was an efficient way to reach the goal, yes, but not |
214 |
the right one. |
215 |
|
216 |
-- |
217 |
Best regards, |
218 |
Michał Górny |