On 06/19/2013 09:15 PM, g...@malth.us wrote: > Sorry to hear you have such a low opinion of the socialization of Gentoo > developers. Since I'm not one of them, I'll just put forth my 2c in on > this, without fear of "consequences."
Yet even users not behaving will get a friendly warning and might be restricted in their access to our media. > Am I the only one who feels that trolling, abuse, and so forth, are largely > in the eye of the beholder, and that lively, impassioned, constructive > debate may seem to many readers like hyperbole and ad hominem attack? So better to try to think twice and write when you are sure you are as clear as possible =) > As long as I can remember, candid and even ostensibly hostile debate and > argument have been a part of the Gentoo process (the same goes for a great > many open-source projects). Thus far, although not without some frustration > and angst, Gentoo has weathered these storms, and somehow managed to make > sound decisions based on technical and practical merit, after all is said > and done. Sure, but since we are getting more and more people burnt by the process and nothing is gained or lost between: "You suck and this idea is not going to fly at all" and "I'm sure it will not work" > Have you considered the possibility, Markos, that, although not pretty to > look at, such conflicts provide an important cathartic channel to relieve > certain "psychological pressures?" In environments where everyone is > expected, on pain of discipline, to "be civil" all the time, my experience > is that folks start to build up resentments which eventually "explode" > forth, spectacularly, despite -- indeed, one might say, because of -- their > best efforts to conform to those expectations. You can be direct and yet not infringe the CoC. > IIRC, Gentoo already has rules forbidding a laundry-list of antisocial > behaviors like racism, sexism, threats of violence, and so forth, and some > provisions in place to handle violators of that policy, does it not? Yes and now is being enforced fully. > Further -- and please take this as more of a rhetorical flourish than a > genuine concern, but, I wonder, whose job it is to muzzle you, Markos, if > you, yourself get out of line, and will they dare perform it? The rest of devrel still does have full power, the quick action of the devrel leader is just a in between once we got to agree on the quick-action protocol. We have a lengthy procedure for major infringement and it doesn't work for small infringements. > Has a clear consensus emerged that existing rules are not strong enough? Is not a matter of rules, but procedures to enforce the rules. > Or perhaps, are a vocal minority just butt-hurt about some particular > discussion that happened recently? I'm asking fully in earnest, and I > sincerely hope -- and genuinely presume -- I don't have to worry that I'll > be muzzled for doing so, on the basis that I'm "trolling" or what-have-you. No minorities had been considered, vocal or silent. > Why should I even feel the need to say so? Perhaps, that is my problem and > sheer paranoia, but surely, you can appreciate how such an announcement can > potentially have certain "chilling effects," and that the merits of strict > enforcement of such well-intended policies are not necessarily so clear as > they might seem on first glance. Having a gentler tone would just keep the technical field less prone to be encrusted with pointless emotional hindrances. Everybody likes to side between Good and Evil, here we should just have Working and Broken. lu PS: I'd advise to try to tone down another notch your vocabulary if you are afraid of getting some penalty for foul language.
