I like this essay ("Dr. Boli" is a fictional character, who writes about
himself in the third person):http://drboli.com/2014/08/17/things-we-simply-cannot-improve-11/ ---- Dr. Boli has long believed that many of our conflicts today come from a misunderstanding of the difference between *approval* and *tolerance. *They are nearly opposite. It is possible for a Baptist to tolerate a Mormon: that is, to welcome him as a neighbor, to vote for him as a candidate for city council, to patronize his business, and to leave him alone to worship as he chooses. But do not ask the Baptist to *approve* of Mormonism. The Baptist must condemn Mormonism as fiction and heresy, or he ceases to be a Baptist. Likewise, the Baptist has every right to expect *tolerance* from the Mormon, but it would be shameful indeed if the Mormon were to *approve* of the Baptist’s religious doctrines: it would be an admission, in fact, that the Mormon’s supposedly fundamental beliefs are nothing more than a sham. When advocates of a religious system or an alternative family arrangement demand our *tolerance*, they have Dr. Boli’s heartfelt support. When they demand our *approval*, however, they are asking for something to which they have no right. Dr. Boli has lived a long life, and he has seen many changes in the world, but he has still not been able to bring himself to *approve* of Presbyterians. ---- My response to Alexandre, when he connects Free software to other values, is that we must extend tolerance, as understood above, to each other for the GHM to be a success. For example, I'm willing to work on Free software with someone who does not approve of my inter-racial marriage, as long as they are tolerant. On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Thien-Thi Nguyen <[email protected]> wrote: > () Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn-mXXj517/[email protected]> > () Wed, 20 Aug 2014 08:23:08 +0200 > > But, this code is buggy. > > Silly programmer! > > What is the bug (as discerned from this discussion)? > > Why stop at one?! > > What was the fix? What is the long-term fix if any? > > Oh stop this condescending spew, you feckless fool! > > OK, i see i have stumbled incompetently into the conversation, and > not really helped it along in any sense, so forget all that noise. > > But OTOH... all that noise has intent on transmit and consequence > on receive, like all communication. Whatever the intent, it is > possible that the consequence for some reader could be offense. > > For example, years ago i would have taken offense at the usage of > C instead of (say) Emacs Lisp, and even now, re-reading the func i > (kind of, sort of, when in a severe mood) take offense at the > syntax error (broken type decl for ‘coolness’). In both cases, > the offense manifests as the thought "How dare ttn do ACTION!?" > followed by unflattering mutterings, etc. In both cases, the > offense arises from previous negative experiences (w/ C, w/ public > stupidity) that i expect ttn to be thoughtful about (especially > when communicating w/ ME!) but end up feeling disappointed with. > One or two screwups, no worries; repeated transgressions: GRRRR. > > Anyway, i had imagined writing a long exposition reflecting on my > (partial) role as transmitter in this thread, including grotesque > personal memories illustrating how foolish i was (and am wont to > be), but who wants to waste time reading such self-centered crud? > > Instead, i take the opportunity to underline the key point made by > Jim Blandy (as i understand it, YMMV, please correct me if i'm not > Getting It), that an effective working relationship requires focus > on core shared values, but that doesn't mean that divisive factors > should be overlooked entirely. Rather, they should be weighted > less, like sliding the alpha value of an object (in Inkscape) to > less than 100%, but definitely more than 0%. > > That's the ideal, which is underspecified. Which brings us back > to the ideal GHM organization strategy, which was likewise, until > very late, underspecified. Perhaps ‘cool_meeting_p’ can be > improved in these ways: > > - (maybe :-D) use a Lisp already > - don't "fail fast" (don't fail at all) > - for well-behavedness, call a func, and pass context > - redesign w/ scalar (non-boolean) rv > > Generally, i think slack should be considered a core shared value. > I find it easy to conjure (for other GNU hackers), when i keep in > mind how we all suffer from proprietary software and its mindset. > > -- > Thien-Thi Nguyen > GPG key: 4C807502 > (if you're human and you know it) > read my lisp: (responsep (questions 'technical) > (not (via 'mailing-list))) > => nil >
