On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 11:10 -0400, Chris Zimman wrote: > > No arguments here. You cut out the part of my reply where I agreed > > with you on this exact point. The execution was far from ideal. > > If you already said it, my not reposting it does not in any way invalidate > it.
It's called "quoting out of context". Your editing of the thread changes the tone of the thread for anyone that jumps in at the middle. If you are doing this on purpose, it is dishonest (and flabbergasting). If you are doing it out of ignorance, you should be aware of the consequences and implications that such actions have for readers. When you make use of such selective quotes and argue with me, you should expect your motives to get called into question. You are potentially using fallacious logic that has been obfuscated by failing to provide sufficient context. Given the nature of this thread, it lends credibility to the hypothesis that you are a troll, though I have been privately informed that such is not the case. The jury is still out. In my defense, this is why I use my characteristic [snip] markings. They attempt to preserve intellectual honesty, though I admit that I am not perfect and commit frequent logical fallacies of my own. Who among us is perfect, right? ;) > > I am not advocating either way; however, you failed to address my point > > about this community's resistance to change. If anything, you make it > > by presuming that I am in favor of these particular changes. > > I'm not presuming you're in favor of anything or not. What point is there to > address about resistance to change? > I think people are resistant to unmanaged change and/or change that causes > breakage. Excellent point, conceded. > > We have not ignored them, but the rest is our SNAFU. > > I think they were largely ignored. To me, just plodding ahead while saying > "I hear you, but I'm doing it anyway" and ignoring are pretty much the same > result. I was listening the whole time. I wanted to see it resolved on technical merits. At the moment, we are debating process merits. In fact, I am fairly certain that these human issues are causing the real problems, not issues with the code at all. No processes for branching exist; OpenOCD has not done this. No one can be blamed for violating policies to use branches when said policies do not even exist. That said: no individual developer should get to use the trunk as their individual sandbox and be able to run amok like this. This is a process failure. There have been repeated process failures in this community lately, and I would like to work out a way to prevent future problems of similar nature. In fairness, each has been slightly different in precipitation, and I did not see any of them coming. > When you say "our" who are you referring to? I was referencing the plurality of maintainers, of which I am now part. I am attempt to take part of the responsibility for Øyvind's actions, as I would hope that he will do for me when the mob tears me apart someday. > > How do you do development? Do you say: "I am not sure how I am going > > to fix this problem, so I should not even start." I hope not. > > Well I think that depends on whether I'm doing development for myself, or for > others. > If I'm working on something that other people use, I would probably solicit > an idea, or if I wanted to try something without, I would probably do it in a > private branch. Full ACK. :) I actually wrote the above expecting this kind of setup, but I tried to punt. I will follow up on branches in another thread. > > I continue to be happy to receive complaints about the project, on or > > off the list. Funny though, no one seems complain except a few vocal > > folks that only post to this list. I am not interested in placating > > cowards that are unable to directly address their issues with us. > > No one needs to address their issues directly with you versus the community > at large. > It's GPL'd code -- need I say any more. Some people may be afraid (or unable) to speak up in public because of their circumstances or personal disposition. I am offering my services as a mediator between unhappy individuals and the existing maintainers. I am too new to be a member of the "old boys club", but I have earned enough respect from the other maintainers to have commit privileges. This last fact may give hope to those who are otherwise losing it, and perhaps they will send a note to share their perspective. I don't know. If I cannot provide this service, then I ask you: who can? And do you at least agree that such mediation could be valuable to the community? Do my efforts in this area appear to be less than sincere? Should I be trying a different approach at this kind of diplomacy? I want to learn if you have genuine suggestions for improving, but I do not think you speak for the community's need for some type of outlet. So, what is your point about the GPL? That they can fork us? Or that you will fork us? You have lost me, so -- yes -- you really do need to say more. Given the character of your e-mails, I must now necessarily view you as a threat to the project until you clear this up. So sad, this ambiguity of language; it is so easy to have your words twisted. Does this at least help show why I am a sticker for context? If things are really this bad, maybe I should just resign. This would make three threats to fork in as many weeks, and that is enough to make me think that I am carrying around some kind of curse. Certainly, I am growing weary of trying to help put out the flames on the list and then feeling its infernal warmth spread to my own personage. > > Both of the individuals that chose to leave the community were given > > ample opportunities to try and resolve their issues. They chose not to > > work out their differences; I personally bent over backwards in both > > cases to appease them, but I failed in both cases. I am not happy > > about that outcome either, so I rather resent the implications you make > here. > > Again, I don't think it's so much about you personally versus the direction > of the project at large. > You can feel how you want about anything I say, that won't change what > happened. Thank you for saying this, but the implication that offended me was that my efforts somehow related to the individuals that left. This fact was once again lost due to your selective quoting. Will you concede that I have tried at every turn to prevent Bad Things for the community? There has been a lot of complaints about the community, but precious little action to take proactive prevention measures to help it to avoid these kinds of situations. While most responsibility lies with the maintainers, additional responsibility must be acknowledged by the community for its failure to drive these issues to resolution sooner. I will do what I can to help ensure this does not happen again. > > To the community: > > > > If you have a beef, you need to air it and get it settled -- or leave. > > I think that's pretty much what happened, except it was the latter in both > cases. I would continue to welcome both Jeff and Dick back to the community, and I have seen enough of a pattern here to know what it might take. That will require a new thread after a good night's sleep, though. > > I will take an intolerant view to people that present a consistently > > negative attitude and disrupt this community. Such people are trolls > > and should be banished from any community. It's happened to me, and > > the shame of those incidents taught me how to be more civil. I will not > > hesitate to shame those who I see behaving badly, as I have come to > > expect to be shamed myself. > > I am glad that you feel that you can take it upon yourself to decide who > should be shamed and not for expressing their feelings. Hi. I am an American. We have the Right to Freedom of Speech. This was sent on my internet, so I will use that Right. I think that society has gone to hell in a hand-basket precisely because we have stopped shaming each other into civil behavior. Besides, all I can do is say what I think. The shame comes from within those who read the words and realize that they have done something bad. After all, who am I to say what is good or bad? All of us only know what we think is good and bad; we must be shamed to change our views. Further, the best I could do is claim to have catalyzed the shame that someone should have felt before doing the bad thing in the first place. Alternatively (and more likely), I will get corrected for my erroneous information about the nature of good versus bad. In which case, I may be ashamed myself -- or laugh it off. Does this seem logical and fair? If you want to express your feelings in a polite and professional manner, they anything you want to say will be welcome. What will not be welcome is purely emotive screaming, as such behavior is shameful -- as in "deserving of shame." Or do you think that such should be tolerated? > Please keep any correspondence in the mailing list. This is not a personal > issue to me, so I don't need to handle it in private email. I apologize for hitting Reply instead of Reply-all (and the for my mailing system for delaying the second message just minutes later). Clearly, I have no intention of shying away from the public eye. However, I will ask you to be more careful with your replies to avoid the selective quoting. You will not see me reply to your posts if you continue to pull such tricks, intentional or not. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
