I'm not criticising the current organisers.
FWIW, my original reply didn't go to you either.
Your original reply went to the list. When you presumably did reply
directly
to me at one point, I got two separate messages: one to me and one via
the
list. What was that all about? Do we have to wait for two messages
from you -
one public, one private - to have permission to respond?
That was an accident (because this list doesn’t set an Reply-To
header) and the mails were identical.
If you want to criticise people in public for what they have said and
to
misrepresent their position, you have to accept that other people will
have
something to say about it.
I don’t. I was referring to you saying that *you* are not criticizing
the current organizers. My original reply was to an e-mail that clearly
did, suggesting measures I don’t agree with for goals I consider
wrong. Which I explained why.
The mail *I* replied to said it would be a good thing *for the
conference*
to get smaller because we could fly in people from South America and
those
people are more interesting anyway.
Since the record of what people said is public - and yes, I actually
quoted
your mail in response to Jacob's mail - people can make up their own
minds
about what was really meant, which I seriously doubt is what you are
claiming.
If Jacob meant meant something else than I understood in
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/europython/2014-February/008275.html
he can feel free to correct me. I’d also like to point out that at no
point I criticized people, only concrete ideas that were expressed. I
won’t let you push me in a mud fight I didn’t start.
That are *completely* different concerns from what you're bringing up
and I
find it highly irritating to be confronted with pot metaphors based
on that
derailment.
What's a "pot metaphor" here exactly?
I mixed you up with John who replied in the same spirit
(https://mail.python.org/pipermail/europython/2014-February/008285.html).
Apologies.
Why might someone sensibly advocate a
limit on attendees without having some kind of "elitist" agenda? Oh,
that's
right, I already explained why: a $100/person loss on a thousand
person
conference is pretty convincing; maybe it really does have something
to do
with that after all.
This kind of thing is what irritates me hugely about the so-called
Python
community and why, as I've explained to a few people before now, I've
diverted
a lot of my time to other initiatives instead. You have people who
have made
substantial investments of their own time and resources into
establishing
something that benefits others, and what you often get in response is
sniping
about some hidden agenda or how people could have done more or better.
It's like the mainstream subculture around Python has made some kind
of virtue
out of getting people to work for free so that people can pretend to
be those
people's boss and think they have the right to demand things from
them. This
pervades the so-called community from top to bottom and in almost
every
regard. Whereas other initiatives and communities offer appreciation
for any
contribution, with a "thank you" for having done anything at all, the
apparent
norm in the Python scene is to tell people that they didn't do enough
or that
what they did was inferior to what should have been done, or that it
wasn't
licensed according to "community expectations" (where they get to sell
your
work in a binary and send you the bug reports), replacing "thank" with
another
word of choice, in effect.
Christian wrote that "ANY organization having volunteers work for them
should
be extremely humble for having anyone spend their spare time for
them."
Well, without accusing any organisation of anything, I think the
so-called
community as a whole should re-evaluate how it treats people who offer
their
time and resources to benefit everyone else.
At this point I can only assume malice from your side since you –
again – completely ignored what I wrote and just keep bringing up your
pet reasons – whose validity I *never* disputed. That wouldn’t be
that bad if you wouldn’t pretend all the time that I’m arguing
against them while pushing some own egoistic agenda bare any gratitude.
I’m not going to re-iterate my email once more because you apparently
don’t want to comprehend the point I was trying to make whatever your
personal reasons are. Everyone can just read the archives and make
their own picture of this. For reference, my original response that can
be found at
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/europython/2014-February/008277.html .
Don’t expect any further replies for me, I don’t have time for
such kind of unconstructive behavior.
_______________________________________________
EuroPython 2014 Berlin, 21th27th July
EuroPython mailing list
EuroPython@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/europython
