Hi Mark, Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 18:12 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver: > Hi Leo, > > Leo Prikler <leo.prik...@student.tugraz.at> writes: > > > Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 19:02 +0200 schrieb Giovanni Biscuolo: > > > I also spent some time re-reading messages that Mark sent in this > > > thread and, like him, I really don't understand what Mark did > > > wrong. > > > > > > For sure Mark /insisted/ that Raghav and Léo did something wrong > > > with > > > some commits, we can say Mark did it being /direct/ and > > > /accusatory/ > > > but we cannot really say Mark assumed bad faith from them. > > He did wrong insofar as his accusatory message read as though he > > was > > assuming bad faith > > Can you please point out which of my words led you to conclude that I > was assuming bad faith? I am basing this on the following exchange:
Am Montag, den 26.04.2021, 19:17 +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès: > > I feel an obligation to protect our users, and among other things > that > > means calling attention to Guix committers that are doing things > like > > pushing commits with misleading commit logs (which evade proper > review) > > and pushing "cosmetic changes" that remove security fixes. > > That you called attention on these issues is a great service to all > of > us, Mark. But I have to agree with Ricardo: the harsh accusatory > tone > towards Raghav and Léo was not warranted; please assume good faith. > To re-iterate, I believe you were (and are) right to call out commits for their misleading messages, but the unique circumstances of this thread led people to think you were assuming ill intent or something along those lines. Again, I might just be reading Ludo's message wrong here (and if not, Ludo might have read Ricardo wrong at the time; the original message seems to be directed towards Léo for insinuating you assumed bad faith when you weren't). That being said, I think it is fair to argue, that some people read your posts as assuming bad faith from Léo and some did the reverse. I can't put hard numbers to that, but given the number of participants an existence "proof" ought to suffice. > For what it's worth, I have *never* assumed bad faith, and I don't > think > I said anything to imply it either. > > > (or at the very least incompetence, which, if you are the party > > being > > accused, does not sound too nice either). > > I pointed out facts. I did not engage in speculation beyond the > facts. Well, you did fumble on those facts a little, because the true history of the misleading commits was only discovered later. So did I in the same thread. Either way, "just pointing out facts" is not an accurate assessment in my opinion; facts are nothing without interpretation, which see. > Here, I think that you are making your own speculations based on the > facts that I uncovered, and are attributing those speculations to me. > That's unfair. Your speculations are not my responsibility. > > Moreover, even if it were true that most people would make similar > speculations based on the facts I exposed, that's not my > responsibility > either. Here, I believe, you are wrong. If your audience is led to a certain view due to your speech, even if it's not something you explicitly stated, you are still the one who made them hold that view (or reinforced it, if they already held it before and you merely made a claim in support of their view). From an utilitarian point of view, it is the effects of your actions, that matter. > > > If you want you can consider Mark used an /harsh/ tone but this > > > is a > > > personal feeling, something one /could/ read "between the lines" > > > even > > > if actually in a written communication I find it hard to read > > > between > > > the lines, it is not something factual. Maybe Mark intended to > > > be > > > harsh, maybe not: who knows? Is /this/ (finding he was harsh) > > > important? > > It is definitely of some importance. > > I agree that it's of some importance, but it's also a fundamentally > hard > thing to do. I'm genuinely surprised by some of the claims being > made > about my messages, especially the claim that I assumed "bad > faith". I > didn't say anything to imply that, I didn't think it, and I still > don't. I agree, it is hard, and it is also not immediately obvious what effects a given statement might have. We can only ever evaluate such things a posteriori and try to learn from them. > Sorry, what I meant to write above was "it's also fundamentally hard > to > anticipate the 'tone' that others will attribute to my writing." Don't worry, that's more or less the way I read it. In case you wonder, the way I read it "reading between lines" is hard, which certainly also holds, especially outside one's first language. Let it be said, that I don't condemn you for starting this thread. Not only did it highlight an issue, that would otherwise have gone unnoticed, I think most of the participants are now more acutely aware of what might go wrong if they evade review. It is sad, that things turned out the way they did, but despite what others might claim you don't bear sole responsibility for that. Regards, Leo
