On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Olav Vitters <o...@vitters.nl> wrote:
> > I didn't imply he was a troll. I've already stated he is a troll. And by most people's definition of the word, you'd be wrong in calling him that. Where's that Code of Conduct when you need it? >> Again, I disagree. I would be willing to bet that Bruce has better >> things to do with his life than stir up controversy. > > Could you expand on this? No, because I'm not Bruce Byfield. I am sure he has a life, tends to day-to-day issues and has better things to do than make your life difficult. > >> > I'm not sure what the right approach is, but I think you should be >> > careful. It is quite easy to spin any response as e.g. 'GNOME doesn't >> > like to hear the truth'. >> >> Arguably, there are many things in this article that GNOME folks >> should ask themselves, assuming that Byfield is right in at least some >> points in his commentary; to say nothing of working under the >> assumption that nothing -- not even GNOME -- is perfect. One >> observation right off the bat: I can't use GNOME 3 due to hardware >> limitations, and personally I feel that having to use the "fallback >> mode" is the digital equivalent of being forced to sit at the back of >> the bus (an analogy that's probably only understood by Americans, but >> for the rest of you it goes back to racial inequality in the US up to >> the 1960s when non-whites had to sit in the back of the bus). I don't >> think I'm the only one who feels that way. > > I find this comparison over the top offence. > > I urge you to read https://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct I don't. Here's why: People who are unable to use GNOME 3 and must use the "Fallback Mode" -- seriously, is that the best name you could come up with? -- arguably are second-class citizens because they do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as GNOME 3 users. If you're offended, that's tough. But that's how it is. I read the code of conduct and I don't think it violates it. Maybe you should read it yourself. > I said that inaccurate or intentionally misleading. Or in plain word: > the site lies. And again I would say you were wrong, and I'm sure thoughtful members of this mailing list deal in reality. > Your response is: 'look into the mirror'. > > I don't see how these thing relate. Pity. Anyway, you're welcome. Larry Cafiero -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list