Hi Jude,I wrote an email about some GUI features I'd like to see in the default
DE for Devuan. Jaromil wrote a thoughtful response. As a result I'm willing
to use the first stable release (and possibly beta release) and give feedback
and/or bug reports.
If that's the kind of thing that belongs on a "tech" list, then what's the
purpose of this list?
Also-- are the VUAs arguing for more lists actually arguing that more
abstraction doesn't come with the cost of adding more complexity? (Especially
given that there's already an invite-only dev list, so guaranteeing that any
additional dev list would be a misnomer.)
Also-- what is the cost of advocating on _this_ list for more empathy and less
meanness?
-Jonathan
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 2:10 PM, Jude Nelson <jud...@gmail.com> wrote:
It has been suggested several times now that the reason Debian developers
supposedly suffer a disconnect from Debian users is because there are dedicated
-dev and -user mailing lists, where -dev is moderated to be development topics
only. It has been suggested that because developers can simply ignore -user,
they get disconnected from their needs.
I don't think either of these conclusions are true. First, even if a DD isn't
subscribed to any public Debian mailing list, (s)he still receives bug reports,
feature requests, and direct emails from users. Moreover, the first two are
public record. Wanting to ignore unrelated conversations is not a sign of
disconnect.
Second, disconnect can happen regardless of the ML structure--anyone can
whitelist/blacklist email addresses belonging to people they don't want to
listen to, and anyone can simply ignore an email message.
Third, the biggest sources of toxicity in user/developer relations in Debian
that I have seen are narcissism and the lack of empathy. I have seen prominent
developers dismissing valid, constructive criticism with "if you don't like it,
fork it--it's open source after all" and "Linux is not about choice." I have
also seen long-time Debian users bad-mouthing developers for not going through
great lengths to support their pet use-case--nevermind the fact that the
use-case applies only to them and is greatly outside the scope of the program.
The ML structure will neither fix nor prevent bad behavior. However, it can
mitigate its effect on the project. For this reason, I support Hendrik's idea
of having a -tech mailing list for technical topics only (but that both users
and developers can join). I also support having a few guidelines on more
specialized mailing lists (should they be created) that describe what behavior
is appropriate on them, as well as having a publicly-visible process in place
for how to deal with people who abuse their list membership.
Thanks,-Jude
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Martijn Dekkers <devuan-li...@dekkers.org.uk>
wrote:
We do not need another list.
That's pretty arrogant. Can you back that up with some actual reasons, like
others in this discussion are doing? Or is this simply a case of "because I
said so"
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
