On Sun, 2021-07-18 at 21:16 -0600, R C wrote: > On 7/18/21 9:08 PM, Valerio Bellizzomi wrote: > > On Sat, 2021-07-17 at 16:33 -0400, Dave Cole wrote: > > > I missed the beginning as well, but I think something happened > > > that > > > was > > > not on this email list that prompted the COC stuff ? > > > Perhaps it was an attempt to prevent a future issue!? > > > > > > I really have no idea. > > > > > > No one has ever explained why it was written or why it is > > > important. I > > > asked more than once .... and the response was "crickets". > > > > > > Personally, I don't see the need for it. > > > > > > I'm not big into making up or accepting additional rules when > > > they > > > can't > > > be explained. > > > You saw the results of this "non-event". It wasn't pretty. If > > > someone thinks this is needed. Pipe up and say why. > > > > > > Anyway, I think we need to remember that LCNC is a "cooperative > > > effort" > > > between a number of very intelligent folks. > > I only write here occasionally, and really it isn't a big deal to > > follow the CoC, it even might learn something to the malicious who > > thinks this list is a good place to do trolling: don't even start. > > > > Sincerely there is very intelligent people here, but in some cases > > intelligence falls short when it comes to abide to an objectively > > tiny > > set of additional rules for the common good. > > Rules about conduct are never objective, they are created by someone > for > others, and for a purpose that that CoC writer prefers, and > therefor > not objective, but subjective. Hence the ongoing 'class S' storm > you > see going on here, and rightfully so.
You are again misunderstanding my words: I didn't say that rules are objective, I said it is an objectively tiny set of rules (compared to some other CoC like the Sourceforge one and the W3C one). And yes, who runs the project has admin rights and owns it in practice, and has the right to issue rules for others to follow. > > > > > > > Being "cooperative" and "helpful" is a personal decision. It > > > doesn't > > > take much to cause people to "not be" cooperative and helpful! > > > Tread lightly! > > > > > > I think that LCNC has been a huge success and has helped > > > humanity. > > > Try and find something else you have done that has "helped > > > humanity". > > > That is BIG. > > > > > > Lets not blow it. > > > > > > Again, I want to thank those folks on this list who have helped > > > me > > > and > > > others with LCNC. > > > I really appreciate your efforts! :-) > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > On 7/17/2021 1:28 PM, Stuart Stevenson wrote: > > > > WOW - I missed it all! > > > > > > > > My wife and I left 24 Jun 2021 and returned 07 Jul 2021. I > > > > didn't > > > > check > > > > emails until we returned. > > > > > > > > Seems to me a lot of people confuse the right to comment with > > > > the > > > > obligation to comment. > > > > > > > > The COC appears to be a compilation of what everyone on the > > > > list > > > > has been > > > > doing all along. Therefore, Jeff's comment, "a non-event", is > > > > appropriate. > > > > > > > > I don't know what triggered the need for putting in the work to > > > > develop the > > > > COC but I trust Jeff has identified the need. > > > > > > > > I don't know who/what is going to be the COC sheriff but it > > > > will be > > > > a > > > > thankless job. Even more thankless than general development. :) > > > > > > > > It is my hope the job of COC sheriff is somewhat less > > > > interesting > > > > than the > > > > maytag repairman job. > > > > > > > > thank you Jeff for your attention and work > > > > > > > > Stuart > > > > > > > > I was encouraged when I saw Valerio comment about making a > > > > project. > > > > He is > > > > thinking about getting back to work. We should follow his > > > > thought > > > > pattern. > > > > :) > > > > > > > > My only negative feeling was when it was suggested a democratic > > > > vote would > > > > fix it. Democracy is mob rule - nothing else. It is one hundred > > > > people > > > > walking into a restaurant and waiting until 51 have agreed on > > > > what > > > > to eat > > > > and then everyone has to eat what the 51 decided everyone needs > > > > to > > > > eat. Not > > > > pleasant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 6:48 AM Mark Wendt < > > > > wendt.m...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 6:07 AM andy pugh <bodge...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 09:55, Mark <wendt.m...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bullshit. It's a sign that someone(s) wants to create > > > > > > > political > > > > > > > division and strife > > > > > > No, I think that we can be 100% sure that that was never > > > > > > Jeff's > > > > > intention. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > atp > > > > > > > > > > > It may not have been his intention but it certainly has > > > > > turned > > > > > the group > > > > > into just that. > > > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Emc-users mailing list > > > > > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Emc-users mailing list > > > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Emc-users mailing list > > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > > _______________________________________________ > Emc-users mailing list > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
