On 12/04/2021 14:52, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zane...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> No, you are insinuating that the glibc community both as maintainer
>> and contributors acted in a hateful way regarding the 'joke'
>> removal. Sorry, but this is not true;
>
> Easy to say for someone who hasn't been the target of hate, but it's
> just that it was there right then, it's *remains* there. Not exclusive
> among glibc maintainers, and certainly not unanimous among them, but
> there. I may even have earned it myself. But the one that Richard got
> over incorrect assumptions that he commanded the reversal, that's just
> another false piece of evidence often used to support the hate campaign.
There were no "hate" campaign from glibc developers and maintainers,
keep stating it does not make it true. Since libc-alpha is non moderated
list, there were a lot of unfriendly message from undisclosed or
non-representative people.
What happened is some glibc developers were *really* annoyed in the way
*you* acted, not RMS; and they vocalized it. And you, instead of work
toward to create consensus by making some concession (as the currently
we try to run the glibc community), keep arguing to exhaustion that you
acted in the benefit or the project.
So the aforementioned 'hate' is just because we did not agreed in the
way *you* acted, which caused a lot of distress.
>
>> The main idea, which I was vocal about and shared with some glibc
>> developers and maintainers, was that the "joke" has no place in a
>> technical manual.
>
> I understand there is consensus about that now, but back then there were
> too many unsettled policy issues to make that call consensually among
> all relevant parties.
>
> The main disagreement was not over the issue proper, though. It was
> about procedure, and then it was about whose opinions as much as
> counted.
No, the disagreement is the way *you* did it. I haven't seen such
contention and disarray you started since I have started to work on the
project, about a decade ago.
So, please stop put the blame of that episode on the glibc community as
a whole.
>
>
> It was a really trivial issue, but sufficiently hot-button and
> triggering enough underlying issues that it got to be exploited
> politically in several ugly ways.
>
> It can't really be understood without looking into broader contexts that
> had long been mounting, and that again quite explicit in this list too.
>
>
> But I hope we can all agree that it was a horrible mess.
>
