> >> === > >> > >> So .. in summary: > >> > >> 1/ I propose that we do have written guidelines, to which someone behaving > >> in a > >> non-constructive manner can be pointed. > >> > >> 2/ if those guidelines *are the consensus* of this group and someone is > >> unable to > >> follow them (given some reasonable chance to amend as is customary in > >> matters > >> such as employment law here, at least), then they are treated no > >> differently from > >> any other spam. > > > > Proposing the guidelines essentially means that the community accepts the > > fact > > that many of us are incapable of navigate everyday problems and dilemmas > > by making > > “right” decisions based on the use of good judgment and values rather > > than sterile > > sets of rules and conventions that typically disregard the individual, > > the particular, > > or the discrete. > > However, that isn’t what I wrote - what I wrote was the opposite; that > history shows > that almost everyone communicating on these lists can do so constructively > *without* > recourse to written guidelines. > > It is not the general case that has precipitated this discussion but, > rather, the exceptional.
There have been many discussions emanating from Nathan's messages, that toxity is endemic. I disagree with that in practice as you do. But there are some discussions that potentially lead to the opposite. I feel that when the issues at hand produce a series of contrasting views that are significant. taking a guideline approach could result > > Thusly, it is wrong to suggest that the problems are simply associated > > with RMS, FSF and GNU. > > My mail contains no reference to any of these, but simply to identifying > processes > that have failed to work in discussions (about those topics, granted). No, your message did not reference that. But was a general assessment of what I have seen developing. Indeed, the discussion started with the same person suggesting "white male privilege", the source of all toxicity coming from one individual and those associated with him, etc. > > Human beings have the capacity to be wise and develop their thoughts on > > wise > > decision-making skills that evolve from a combination of experience, > > empathy, > > and intellect. Many times, this means having the capacity to break those > > guidelines and rules. > > “rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men”? > > As noted above, 99.99% (guessed of course) of the list traffic is carried > out in > the guise you mention, and probably would continue to be so… > > … the proposal is to have a mechanism to deal with the exceptional. That depends on the arguments of the discussion. It is acceptable at times to respond roughly to some kinds of discursive treatment. Although Nathan was allowed to write, he was surely aware of the implications - that a schism was likely. > > In the World Trade Center Disaster, many people who were used to following > > the rules died because they did what they were told by authority figures. > > I know about these things as part of my industrial work experience. > > Probably almost no-one “here” would be able to substantiate or deny this - > am I to > take it that it is a serious data point suggesting that absence of control > is a better > process? There have been numerous historical instances - let's say in the journalistic realm where I do operate - when that was true. Still, I am not against moderation when required in principle. Indeed, it is part of the job as maintainer (and co-maintainers, etc.) to exercise authority on these points when they arise. Personally, I am not afraid to exercise them when associated with my own work. Customarily, I would not oppose to intervention, except on special instances when the assessments was faulty - I specifically mention Gnu Health and the arguments Dr. Luis Falcon had with Savannah regarding package admin. May I remind everybody that Argentina opted for GNU Health for COVID19 observatory and contact tracing. At the time, I was also doing my own work on COVID19 and considered my intervention necessary. > There is no counter experiment to determine the outcome in the case that > there > were no authority figures and no rules (nor would anyone wish to conduct > such an > experiment). > > To me this is spurious input, I cannot see how it could be used to make any > guidance > to the progress here. > > Iain > > > > >> * although one might lose some notionally valuable input, the judgement > >> here is that > >> the net benefit of such input is negative. > >> > >> 3/ I would recommend on the basis of another online community (about > >> music) > >> to > >> which I belong, to suggest that Politics (party or international) and > >> Religion are better > >> discussed in other forums and are exceedingly unlikely to affect a > >> technical decision > >> on the progress of GCC - such discussions almost never end well. > >> > >> (I’d believe that any valid exception to the need to heed some political > >> situation would > >> be readily recognised by the participants here). > >> > >> 4/ It is likely that we can extract much of the basic guidelines from any > >> other writing on > >> communicating constructively - after all, it is how 99.99% of this list > >> traffic is managed > >> without intervention. > >> > >> my 0.02GBP only, "patches welcome", > >> Iain > > >
