Ok, I think it's time to call the private behavior of Kitware employee Sebastian Barre to the attention of the list. I've repeatedly asked him to stop sending me private e-mail flames, and he simply will not do it. This is the 3rd flame he's sent since being point blank asked to stop initiating private communication with me. I brought this to Bill's attention; he said it's Sebastian's private e-mail and he didn't want to get involved. I will be getting Google involved as he is in clear violation of their Terms Of Service. It amazes me that any so-called "professional" feels they have the right to routinely engage in what every ISP out there defines as harassment, let alone one representing a company such as Kitware.
Meanwhile, let's get the CMake community involved. Do you think it's acceptable for a Kitware employee to be harassing me in private e-mail over and over again? The amount of ill will that Sebastian has singlehandedly created in the past few days is considerable. Bill's unwillingness to do anything about Sebastian makes me think he pretty much agrees with Sebastian's opinions, and would like nothing better than to drive me out of here. If this is how Kitware thinks it's acceptable to do business in an open source community, there is going to be a sea change in how the open source world deploys CMake's core technology. Below is Sebastian's most recent missive: On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Sebastien BARRE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 3/4/2008 01:40 PM, you wrote: > > >I said one can debate it. Your position seems to be that one cannot > >debate it, and shouldn't be allowed to debate it. > > Keyword "seems", as in: it's actually not what I said. > > > >I think everyone is capable of forming their own opinion of how precious > CMake > >script is to any given company, and how many companies would be only > >too glad to move on if a viable alternative was available to them. > > No, not everyone can, because not everyone is working on the CMake > product, and is interacting with those companies, customers, etc. on > a daily basis. You, especially, are not, so when you try to say that > it's a small/moot point you actually have nothing to base this claim > on, as usual; this is FUD, and you will find the corresponding answer > on the mailing list from now on. When I say that's it's an important > point, I actually do have the facts and experience to back it up, > since that's what we do. Do you understand the difference? > > > >Be advised: if there's a real market need and you're not willing to > >fulfill it, someone always comes along who will. > > I'm shaking in my boots. Please refrain from talking about our > business or marketing, as I'm afraid you don't have a clue about it, > and admitted it a few days ago if I recall. Do I need to send an > email to Google to "make you stop"? (<- joke). Below is the kind of missive that led me to ask Sebastian to stop sending me private e-mails. I tolerated his diatribe and tried to get him to see my point of view. When that proved impossible I asked him to stop contacting me privately, and he has refused. In fact, he seems to delight in sending me more private flames, just to prove that I can't tell him what to do. Brandon Van Every ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sebastien BARRE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 2:08 PM Subject: Re: [CMake] CMake and Lua To: Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> At 2/29/2008 01:15 PM, Brandon Van Every wrote: >Sebastian, some frank feedback, since you continue to go on in this >vein. You are obnoxious. Hahaha. Well if that isn't an accomplishment! Finally recognized by my peers! I'd like to dedicate this BVE Award to my parents. Honestly. > Furthermore, you are not obnoxious as a >byproduct in the service of an actual goal, as I typically am. You do >it to be deliberately irritating. As opposed to you being deliberately productive, and not getting complaints from anyone, or any other people from any other mailing lists. True words. > I'm not interested in hearing from you in this manner any longer. Oh no! > If you have something to discuss about >the future of CMake, you have to do it with professionalism. Bill and >I have had many rows in the past few years, but ultimately we are >always professional "Bill and I". You are cute. There is only one professional in that sentence, Brandon. >about it and we each have our own vision of "best >interest for CMake" at heart. I get no such indication from you. Brandon, I appreciate you being frank in your insul... huh I mean compliments, and honestly this is touching me (for about 2 secs). Now since you shared your personal opinion, here is my *personal* opinion as well, my *own*, fruit of my experience outside the company, on usenet forums, and other Internet media: you are a tool. I can't even start to describe you the credibility you have in the CMake development team in particular, and most probably in the software community in general. It's zilch. Nada. You are the bottom of jokes Brandon, the troll every mailing list maintainer would mention a beer in hand, when no stories are left. That you think you are pushing the enveloppe on CMake is the thought of a megalomaniac: an enveloppe would move faster if I put it in front of a glacier, to quote ZP. You have*nothing* to backup your claims at a "professional" level (thank you for using that word above BTW, that was fun, "marketing" too), and the CMake projects you worked on either failed or ended being rejected, but you still won't get a clue. Your excuses for those failures are sad and immature, blaming it either on the Chicken/Scheme developer for his alleged lack of vision, or pretending that an "attempt at Mozilla" was good enough to be paid and that they did not see the true path: this doesn't fool *anyone* Brandon, it takes a few minutes of reading your prose to find out why. Do you really think that people will "adopt" your preposterous "plans" just because you have absolutely nothing better to do with your time than repeating the same things over and over ad nauseam? Newsflash: it doesn't work like that, you don't make an argument this way and it took me only 3 posts to defuse this inane ultimatum and expose your own contradictions. It would "eventually" work if you had an ounce of social skills online, but if there had to be a meter for that measurement, you would definitely be throning at one of the opposite ends, I'll let you guess which one. You have zero sense of business in short, mid or long term, you are pedantic, inconsistent and aggressive on any of the mailing lists I've seen; you make up facts, numbers and non-existing "followers"/"others"; when you are not posing as a CMake developer "by accident", you still manage to try to pose as a "community" when the community is not even remotely in sync with your concerns (we meet them). You called me obnoxious (?) but honestly I wonder from time to time if you are either on drugs or on meds, for you have absolutely *no* clue on how to interact online and once the comical effect wears off, it is mostly *very* embarrassing. Cheers. Really, cheers. _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list [email protected] http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
