-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:13:53 -0400 Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So I should cut it, but I'm leaving it so you see what I'm responding to. Seemant, thanks. > 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 > > > Regards, - -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6-ecc01.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGmSCmQa6M3+I///cRAkgdAJ9iEiEccwXHhpobT30s7k8CTvf8JACdGMgd 1flKq6L+B4LhqrMnx9Zveic= =qIVf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
