On 2007-07-16T14:31:51, Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's just about being civil in the future - at least in public.
> Civility won't stop people from getting their feelings hurt, because
> only withdrawing from reality can stop that. But it will put a bound on
> those hurt feelings.
Alan, can we talk plain text here please - did anyone but you get your
feelings hurt? What specific incident are you talking about? If it's
you, as I somehow suspect, I'd argue you're not exactly in the best
position to moderate that particular discussion.
With regard to expressing them civilly, it hasn't worked. We've
discussed civilly for years by now, I've all but begged you publically
to please, either do it yourself or delegate tasks, and been ignored.
If you wish to discuss discussing, I can but highly recommend "Hostage
at the table".
Being adult also implies acknowledging feelings. The occasional "oh
f*cking crap" outburst does not make a dent in any adult's ego. Compared
to LKML, this list is civil like hell.
> I have tried very hard to express my disagreements in a civil way in
> recent months.
Yes. But sometimes, you've chosen not only not to reply to mails you (I
can but guess) perceived as "not civil", you've _ignored_ the complaint
in there. You've also ignored my more civil replies in this thread.
If one believes one has the emotional upper-hand in an discussion, _and_
is interested in a resolution, it helps to listen to the complaint,
ignore the heat, and react to that. But this is turning into a meta
discussion.
But let me just say - you of all people should understand that it is
frustrating to feel ignored. I seem to recall you don't react kindly to
it happening by accident, and I don't react kindly to it when I feel it
is perceived to be done out of slight thinly disguised as moral
superiority.
> What I'm asking for here is a little adult self-control - not censorship
> of ideas, but a little self control in deciding not to bash people, and
> to try and avoid personal attacks and harsh words. Surely we can
> disagree without being disagreeable.
I agree with the principle, but I dare point out that sometimes, heated
discussions do have a legitimate complaint at the core, and one way from
preventing them from heating up so much would be to fix the cause of the
complaint.
In this case, it would be making sure the project has _continuous_
leadership worth the name.
Alan, this is one of your good phases, and I'm confident you'll put out
a good release. The problem is that your swing into these usually
happens after quite an "interesting" phase, and then you suddenly go
"Who? Me?" and act civilly, technically brilliant and reasonable like
you do now - you even tend to acknowledge the mistakes of the past, a
prophet for integrity, and wouldn't it be nice if everyone did and let
them rest?
The problem after over 7 years is: it does not last.
And, some of the arguments you've raised _are_ at least implicitly
insulting the work we have done on the project. And I _do_ take offense
at that. I can put it nicely like you did, so I could weasel out of it,
but it would only be civil in form, not in content.
> I see my main fault here as not having done this many years ago. It was
> was easier to let people off the hook than it was to confront them.
Indeed, Alan, but that arguments goes both ways, it goes both ways,
doesn't it? I've gone back and forth and said "No, this time, it'll
stick" - and it just never did.
> I would value hearing from you on how we can raise the level of
> discourse on the mailing lists from everyone.
To at least some extend: address the cause, and not the symptom.
Regards,
Lars
--
Teamlead Kernel, SuSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
