On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 9:08 AM, Muellners ApS < [email protected] > wrote:
> > I will refer to more words - “little” show, “childish”, “acquiesce” used > for the community members, “Man beyond reproach” “Men of action” “princess > birdie”. The last one is funny. > > Childish has been used over a thousand times in Apache Lists: https://markmail.org/search/?q=childish Little Show has been used tens of thousands of times: https://markmail.org/search/?q=little+show Acquiesce hundreds: https://markmail.org/search/?q=acquiesce And Princess Birdie, it's only in your imagination, this word was only mentioned by you on *all the lists* in this thread: https://markmail.org/search/?q=%22princess+birdie%22. Why this is important? because this shows your way of action, you bombard the list with emails out of context and full of half-truths without knowing how things work around here. > > These are phrases used by select individuals from this community in > different dehumanising context. > > > > Do we moderate/censor such comments? Is there a way ASF code of conduct > violation throws such members out of this community. What is the role of > Apache Code of Conduct & Diversity statement here? > > The fact that you continue to bombarding this list shows that there is no moderation happening here. > > > > Gerald! > > > > In responsible communities, choice of “adjective” on a public forum on the > Internet has to have a context ready relationship especially if a > conversation includes sensitive content and when individuals do not have a > familiar relationship of endearment. > > This is one of the primary factor of misinformation age of today - Bad > choice of words to represent people and situation. > > > > It is always great not to use words that have both pejorative and non > pejorative meanings to reduce ambiguity in what you are trying to convey > or else you continue to have information leakage. If not done, this most > likely increases cognitive load as you had to spend more time on the same > information transfer. > > > > Most importantly when it is a bilateral or a multi lateral communication & > participants are distributed in different geographies/cultural norms on > this planet, you must be more sensitive and address issues with qualified > statements/words/adjectives. This is a multi lingual planet. > > > > Now, thanks for the example. It’s one thing to use an adjective for > yourself, you are free to call/say whatever you wish to say for yourself > and it is entirely another element to specify an adjective for a fellow > human being or a community. > > > > Perhaps a more respectful and inclusive approach is to discard a norm of > using an adjective or use it but almost always cite it with data as you > have done, and as what Kevin did later after his utterance. > > > > Capacity for Cognitive load does not get reduced by “lurking”, perhaps > gets overloaded in absence of more qualified information relay. You have > increased variable permutations of a multilateral communication scenario. > But it’s your choice. > > > > Thanks wish you health & best regards! > > > > > > On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 12.56, Gerald O'Sullivan < osullivan. gerald@ gmail. > com ( [email protected] ) > wrote: > > >> Dear Friends and Colleagues >> >> >> I am a long-time lurker on this forum. >> >> >> >> Yes, I lurk. I read the emails but I don't respond. Until now. >> >> >> >> I use the work "lurk" deliberately, not in the dictionary sense of the >> word, but in the informal sense defined here: https:/ / www. urbandictionary. >> com/ define. php?term=lurk ( >> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lurk ). In particular, the >> second definition applies to me: >> >> >> >> >>> To read without commenting or contributing, therefore effectively >>> invisible to the rest of the group or community. Generally recommended for >>> joining any forum so that you can observe rules, attitudes and prominent >>> personalities without jumping in ( >>> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jumping%20in ) and breaking >>> a rule, making an ass of yourself, or asking a question about something >>> obvious that you would have learned for yourself if you’d paid attention >>> in the first place. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> In particular, I recognise that because I do not contribute code, or >> documentation, I refrain from making unwanted contributions. I do not >> consume bandwidth or create unnecessary cognitive load. >> >> >> >> The word "lurk" has formal and informal definitions. In the world of >> software development it has a non-pejorative meaning. >> >> >> >> I will now return to lurking. Please continue the good work. >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> Gerald >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 12:20, Muellners ApS < ankit@ muellners. org ( >> [email protected] ) > wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 19.59, Kevin A. McGrail < kmcgrail@ apache. org ( >>> [email protected] ) > wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 10:27 Muellners ApS < ankit@ muellners. org ( >>>> [email protected] ) > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Kevin! >>>>> It's sad that you use words like "lurking" and "free", >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Lurking on mailing lists is a term of art. It means to read more and post >>>> less. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Definition from Oxford Languages; >>> >>> lurking >>> >>> /ˈləːkɪŋ/ >>> >>> Learn to pronounce >>> >>> ( >>> https://www.google.dk/search?client=safari&hl=en-dk&q=how+to+pronounce+lurking&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRoyS3w8sc9YSmDSWtOXmPU4uINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLmYglJLcoV4pbi5GLPKS3KzsxLt2JRYkrN41nEKpGRX65Qkq9QANSSD9STqgBVAQDXsLVpWQAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=gb&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji_66EvsrzAhUMjosKHYcWB4oQ3eEDegQIBBAZ >>> ) >>> >>> >>> adjective >>> >>> adjective : *lurking* >>> >>> * >>> remaining hidden so as to wait in ambush. >>> >>> "the trumpet fish is a lurking predator" >>> >>> >>> >>> * >>> (of an unpleasant quality) present in a latent or barely discernible >>> state, although still presenting a threat. >>> >>> "he lives with a lurking fear of exposure as a fraud" >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>>Why would you use this adjective for a fellow community member? Do you >>> hold such feelings of threat and insecurity? Stop using wrong "adjectives" >>> for your fellow beings. Perceiving threats is the first cause of less >>> openness. How will you listen to newer ideas if you limit this human >>> communication with wrong adjectives & then establish them as norms? See if >>> you can be thoughtful. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Freemail is a term of art as well for services like Yahoo, Gmail, etc that >>>> provide mail services at no charge. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>>What to say to you on this! focus please. I am not interested in >>> wasting this community's time about freemail or such statements. >>> >>> >>> >>> It is clear to me that we should of course create a healthy balance b/w >>> “for profits” and “non for profits” to avoid such distortion of human >>> values which was visible during this Apache Con & in Board Reports. >>> >>> >>> >>> Community events such as what happened in Afghanistan are missing, young >>> talents got pushed to late night slots without wondering how power and >>> internet works in Cameroon, GSoC interns are out of slot, contributors >>> from different companies working hard on Fineract solutions from several >>> parts of world are missing, not a single major FI that consumes the >>> project IP has a keynote, false representation of a complete version of >>> project CN have been running in Board reports and elsewhere until the Con. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> What is required are more visible inclusion & diversity principles, >>> definitely not an outcome with a single "for profit" company & self >>> approvals in return for a meagre pocket change calling it "sponsorship". >>> That's not the way a non-profit should behave. That's not the open source >>> philosophy. I am seriously appalled by this sad demonstration of >>> "diversity". >>> >>> >>> >>> The current processes & norms have failed to respond to the needs for >>> diversity and inclusion in real time. You are applying centralisation to a >>> decentralised community of developers. Right now the governance and norms >>> are selective to exploit IP generated by distributed developers without >>> ever incentivizing them. >>> >>> A contrary example is imagine ASF whose public assets are distributed >>> amongst its contributors, incentivizing each contribution to the project >>> with money. >>> >>> In 2021, humans have a technology that can do that. >>> >>> >>> >>> *"No, We do not make blanket rules for one off problems."* >>> >>> Let's use a better word not one off "problem". This is a systematic event. >>> Problems are climate change, hunger, food crisis, underbanked. By calling >>> norms discussion as a problem, you are demonstrating a lack of willingness >>> to change. >>> >>> This is a financial technology project that affects the lives of end >>> clients and its product lifecycle management should not be exclusion >>> oriented. (remember the vision is financial inclusion). >>> >>> >>> >>> Figuring out begins with realising that we were on the wrong track. >>> >>> >>Your and your colleagues and actions are clearly not those of an >>> individual but an organization with differing goals and objectives from >>> this foundation which you continue to post about on our forums. >>> >>> *The context is not non congruence b/w two Foundations, and in my opinion, >>> you are not qualified to state this about an outside legal entity. >>> Meritocracy perhaps gives you meaning to propose and move ideas on this >>> list, it does not allow you to malign other philanthropic activities >>> happening elsewhere. And if the objective is to shield bad practices & >>> behaviour of "for profits" within the ASF ecosystem, it helps to stop such >>> reasoning.* >>> >>> *Public information from another Non for profit is being shared here by >>> individual contributors affiliated to Muellners Foundation. Of course the >>> Foundation which is the source of credible information is going to get >>> cited.* *That's basic internet literacy to cite things.* *"yours" and >>> "ours" is a construct that you have created. It really helps if you >>> establish such statements with data not perception. Try to bridge >>> differences instead of creating more.* ** >>> >>> >>> >>> If you need my help, I can talk but see Kevin use data, public facing >>> records, meaningful information, & context not wrong adjectives. You are >>> demonstrating lack of understanding, & empathy with *highly* *speculative* >>> statements. That's just surface analytics. It has brought you to a weak >>> conclusion that you have to resort to a poor use of human communication of >>> language. No human has such a right. Read very carefully what is going on. >>> Not a single time, MF colleagues have named or shamed an individual. The >>> process and concepts behind human actions are being discussed. >>> >>> >>> >>> Have a good one! 😤 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, KAM >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ankit >>> Managing Partner >>> Muellners Inc >>> >>> This mail is governed by Muellners® IT policy. >>> The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents >>> may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from >>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if >>> this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert >>> the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any >>> attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents >>> of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly >>> prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be >>> monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure >>> compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails >>> are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be >>> intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are >>> deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail. >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Gerald O'Sullivan >> Solution Architect >> Cellphone: +27 82 412 9962 >> >> > > -- > Ankit > Managing Partner > Muellners Inc > > This mail is governed by Muellners® IT policy. > The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents > may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from > disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if > this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert > the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any > attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents > of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly > prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be > monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure > compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails > are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be > intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are > deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail. >
