Alright, this seems to be getting a little out of hand over something that really isn't that big a deal (what's more, the past is the past and cannot be changed)
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:33:40PM -0300, fauno wrote: > Megver83 <[email protected]> writes: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > Dear Mr. Richard Stallman: > > hi richard, i'm really ashamed you're getting involved in this and the > shitload of emails that'll ensue. if you take the time to read the fine > selection sent, at least hear the other bell and the full story. > > > In the last past days (even some years), the Parabola community > > experimented some issues among its members because of the difference > > of ideas. The problem now is that these issues have increased and now > > it has become a big problem, which could end up with Parabola if we > > don't solve it soon. We are telling *you* this because the Parabola > > Community has been divided, and we need a moderator, so we chose you. > > this "we" doesn't mean the parabola community, just the guys feeling > attacked. > Why do we need to involve Richard in this? I feel like this is somehow a plea to authority trying to have someone else solve our problems. However, I don't think this will solve anything, what's more it creates an authority figure in the Parabola community where instead we should be speaking rationally. We can't expect others to come in and solve our problems for us. Differing opinions is normal since we are all different people (life would be pretty boring if we all had the same opinions). The important thing is reasoning through our differing opinions and finding a compromise (which may or may not be necessary if either side is able to convince the other of their ideas). > > Some time ago *some* Parabola devs thought about creating a webstore > > so that devs can work full time for Parabola and get a salary for > > that, at that point it was just like the "brainstorming" when they > > (we) made some virtual meetings. When this idea became a bit more > > known, then other devs, which were not invited nor involved at the > > beginning started to criticize the ones who begun with the idea > > calling our meetings "secret meetings", "meetings without > > transparency" and bullying some other devs like André Silva > > (Emulatorman), insulting and contradicting him, defending themselves > > attacking others. > > yes, they were secret because everyone else in the community wasn't > involved. you're forgetting you also wanted to force our fiscal sponsor > to pay for things you wanted without caring if they could really pay > them, and then accusing them of mishandling our funds. this forced them > to cut our agreement and everyone else here to find a new fiscal > sponsor. > From what I know (correct me if I'm wrong) although these ideas were discussed in private they were never implemented nor is there currently a plan to implement them. Therefore, what is their sin? I don't think that discussing ideas (or even elaborating them) in private is a bad thing. Now, if they would like to implement any of these then it should be up to the community as a whole where the community is concerned. That is, actions should be transparent, but ideas can be private since they have no real effect until they are put into action. I do see, however, the issue with fiscal policy of Parabola. My personal suggestion is that since Parabola aims to be a community oriented project (afaik) I suggest full transparency. This is something I've done while taking part in a local political party that aimed to be directly democratic and it worked rather well, as it functions as a trustless system where even if you do not trust the person in charge of finances you can keep an eye on their activities with respect to finances. This forces said person to also be more cautious about how they handle things and allows for anyone to publicly bring up any issues that they see with how things are being handled and for them to be discussed by the community as a whole. For this it would be wise to put a link to a GnuCash file on the Parabola website where one can easily find this information. > > It is not necessary to say names, we have collected evidence so we > > can prove what I'm saying is true. Please read the attachment, there > > are the names and emails they've sent to the mailing list. > > this is a bogus claim. your corpus is full of names of people that have > called your bullshit. > > > After all of this, André Silva left the decision of his expulsion to > > the community[1], and many devs and users are on his favor. So we ask > > /devs and users/his friends/ > I am not his friend, I know Emulatorman very little, however from the little I have known him, I have seen him doing quite a bit of work for this project, and that he is a very valuable person for this community. > > you, please, help us with a wise suggestion or with the decision you > > consider correct and propose it to the community. From my personal > > point of view, I think a disclaimer or sth. similar (code of conduct, > > community rules, etc) has to be created, there is none afaik, perhaps > > that's sth. you can recommend?. > > we do have community rules: we have an open list and everything was > always brought here to consensus. > When it comes to community rules I am always very cautious and skeptical, as they tend to have the opposite effect that they are aiming for (especially Codes of Conduct). Policy is one thing, but the behaviour of each individual is something completely separate and (as I see it) non-related. -- Nicolás A. Ortega (Deathsbreed) https://themusicinnoise.net/ http://uk7ewohr7xpjuaca.onion/ Public PGP Key: https://themusicinnoise.net/[email protected]_pub.asc http://uk7ewohr7xpjuaca.onion/[email protected]_pub.asc
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
