I think that is the most fair assessment of the situation that I have read today.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 1:48 PM Connor Behan via aur-general < [email protected]> wrote: > 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. > >
