On 2018-10-30 01:23 PM, Adam Levy via aur-general wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 1:06 PM Daniel Capella <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 5:02 PM Adam Levy >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Being curt and direct is against the code of conduct? >>> >>> It seems to me that these three rules in particular are relevant in this >>> case and were not respected: "Respect other users", "Do not flame" and "Be >>> responsible". >> >> -- >> Best, >> polyzen >> > The only rule there that strikes me as potentially having been violated is > "respect other users". But I think that cuts both ways in this case to be > perfectly honest. It could be argued that Konstantin did not respect the > existing TUs initial responses to his questions. But that's debatable. > > The main point that I am interested in making is that this initial claim of > bullying and violent communication was overblown and inaccurate.
Hot-button words like "bullying" and "violence" are being used as a rhetorical crutch. However, I think the initial accusation of "whining" and telling "bald-faced lies" was also inappropriate. An average AUR packager might not realize that TUs routinely take over packages made by others and move them to [community]. Claiming that a package "is broken" instead of "causes orphan dependencies" also sounds like an honest mistake. And I can't blame a user for not knowing enough about the bug wrangler's workflow to tell which mailing list actions will make a difference. In theory, this can be resolved with an RTFM. But when this realization means that one will have to completely change his approach to developing and packaging software for a larger community, some frustration is understandable.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
