On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:33 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > *sigh*
It seems impossible to have any sort of discussion with you (unless one is in agreement with you, of course, and then one is "clear headed") without eliciting a *sigh* -- I don't think it's particularly the healthiest way to have one. If you simply don't like disagreement, then please be clear about that. > Why is it that everyone always assumes everything the Council does is > "out to get Ciaran" rather than something we see as a good global > solution to our current problems? Well, it would be great if the council can clearly outline what exactly our current problems are. Maybe if you presented those problems and then presented the proposed solutions to them, things would be easier to understand? > Here's a little hint for all of you conspiracy theorists out there. > > If all we wanted was to get rid of Ciaran, we'd just have a fucking vote > to get rid of Ciaran and make all of this *SO* much simpler on > ourselves. This is again a disparaging and unhealthy way to have a discussion. I'm going to request that if you will respond to my notes, please do so with some modicum of civility and respect. If you find yourself unable to do so, then please do not respond to me at all. > We're trying to solve the problem of people, *ALL* people, treating each > other like complete crap on our lists. The "problem" has been an issue > of discipline. We've simply got too many people who are too scared to > take any actions to resolve these problems. Why do you think Developer > Relations has all of these procedures and policies for retiring > developers? Is it because we need all of that to determine if someone > has crossed the line? No. It's because we have a large number of > developers (or possibly even just a very vocal minority) who complain > about every single damn thing anyone ever does and it has been much > simpler to make up these ridiculous guidelines and rules to follow in an > attempt to curb the dissenters than it is to just deal with them. Well, your own method of responding to my note is a good example of treating others like crap. How do we solve that? The problem with moderation is that nobody censors speech with which they agree, but quick to censor that with which they don't. So, here we have an example of one of the possible problems that you alluded to earlier: a vocal minority unable to pick its battles, and which engages in endless nitpicking. Why not just have the "fucking vote to get rid of [them] and make all of this *SO* much simpler on ourselves" then? Why should the vast majority of people on this list have to pay for what is, evidently, a minority? If, on the other hand, it's not a minority, then doesn't that indicate that the issue is on a deeper level? And if so, wouldn't it be more prudent to try and solve that one, instead? > I say drop the rules to something simple that makes sense, boot the > troublemakers, and ignore the dissenters. I'll gladly help anyone make > up any procmail recipes they need to filter their mail. Let's get back > to developing and leave the politics to Obama and Hillary. This is a little worrisome, you know. Perhaps you didn't mean this set of statements to sound as all-encompassing as all that. Isn't dissent and disagreement the result of differing points of view, which could actually benefit Gentoo? My thought is this: everyone should try and evaluate their own behaviour on this list, and the method in which they treat others. If each of us actually thought about the effects of our attitudes, this discussion might well be moot. Thanks, Seemant
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
