What I think we'll benefit us all is a subject matter discussion - and not just an exercise in demagogue. So, if one says he/she believes that fact A was technically incorrect - it'd be courteous to the rest of the participants to explain what was the fact A and why it was perceived to be incorrect. Otherwise how such a statement can be taken into consideration to build a consensus?
Cos On Sun, Mar 08, 2015 at 09:17PM, Bruno Mahé wrote: > Hi Cos, > > Let's not distract the discussion by reading too much into that sentence. > It looked to me as if Sean simply listed all the possible cases (you > missed the part about opinion, which is different from affiliation). > > If you really insist, I can copy paste the tweets that are not > factual from the private thread that you have already been made > aware of. > However I would rather focus now on driving consensus on some guidelines. > > Thanks, > Bruno > > Note: Contributors are supposed to not be influenced by their > affiliation on ASF premises. However it does not mean that we cannot > mention them if this is the case. > I am not saying it is the case here and I don't think it is, but I > wanted to clarify this misunderstanding. > > > On 03/08/2015 08:37 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > >Sean, > > > >in the interest of being factual when you say > > > >On Sun, Mar 08, 2015 at 05:25PM, Sean Mackrory wrote: > >>represent consensus among the Bigtop PMC. In my view, some of the tweets on > >>that account have been factually incorrect, overly biased by the author's > >>own affiliations and opinions, and they are harmful to the community. There > >Could you please be more specific what were technical incorrectness or an > >expression of affiliation? Affiliations are ispofacto should be irrelevant in > >any Apache project. Establishing the factual technical ground would, I am > >sure, will help to have a discussion in a more subject matter. > > > >Regards, > > Cos > > >
