Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Saturday, 22 January 2005 13:01, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
I hereby formally object to my name and my code contributions being dragged into potential religious conflicts, and to using them for proselytizing purposes.
It's sad to see that the repeated calls for keeping political and other controversial stuff off FlightGear don't seem to apply any more.
Please remove the link to my former flightgear page from http://www.flightgear.org/links.html ("FlightGear: Support for joysticks with digital axes"; which is quite outdated anyway)
I'll happily join again, once flightgear treats all its users and developers again "without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, *RELIGION*, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status".
m.
Is this the way things should go? Melchior is not the only person who find the current situation unacceptable.
Maybe I should make a package with a file included that says : "******" and get it put up on the FlightGear site.
I say pull the package in question. If the author wants to distribute it on his own site then that is fine with me but as it stands it looks like we endorse what is in that package.
I'd rather upset one contributor than piss off the whole FG community.
Let's not lose sight of a couple facts:
1. This is all regarding the Mac OS X package.
2. The author has already agreed to make some changes to his package.
3. This package is distributed on a source forge project page registered and maintained by this same developer.
4. The objectionable file is inside the mac package.
5. No one else has volunteered to make a mac friendly package.
So from this I conclude:
1. This situation should already be resolved.
2. We have nothing we can "pull" off flightgear.org even if we wanted to.
3. I don't own a mac, and the mac package is in a mac specific format, so I can't actually check what's going on myself.
4. If complaints are being registered by non-mac users, they can't actually see what's in the file either so their objections are likely to be a bit suspect.
I could also wish a few things.
1. That we treat everyone with respect.
2. That we discuss this issue with the same civility that we manage for just about every other subject.
3. That perhaps we consider a personal email as a first attempt to resolve the issue before needlessly raising a fire storm on the mailing list.
4. Think about it, if any one of us did something inappropriate (we didn't intend the consequences, we didn't think through the ramifications of our actions enough, it seemed like a good idea at the time, etc.) wouldn't we prefer that our error be pointed out in private so we have a chance to think and rectify the problem ourselves ... rather than finding out there's a problem by a huge long tirade on the public mailing list, with all kinds of people piling on to express their outrage?
In this case it turned into a feeding frenzy. Before we were done we had banned the developer from all our mailing lists. We had posted a big notice on our home page disavowing any connection to him. We had lobbied source forge to get him and all his other projects kicked off there. And we had beat him up any other number of ways on our email list.
That's just great! When have we treated any other developer and contributer this way??? If he made a mistake fine, we can fix it peacefully and civilly.
I think we can and *should* do a lot better.
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson http://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
