On 19 Feb 2014, at 15:19, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Bayard Bell <buffer.g.overf...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> From my experiences Illumos is non-collaborative and non-trustworthy. >>> >>> This however is something that could be easily changed. Illumos would just >>> need to give a sign that there is a will for collaboration. >> >> This is tiresome and unreasonable, Joerg. > > I am not sure what you call unreasonable….
The rest of my e-mail was quite explicit on this point. If you're nevertheless "not sure", I take this as a sign that you will continue to complain about the lack of reasonable interlocutors whom you ignore when they address you and ask you what you'll do today to collaborate rather than what are your preferred conclusions and consequences of a personal dispute from four years ago. > A promise is a promise and as Illumos broke that, this is a problem initiated > by Illumos. I am not unforgiving, so it would be simple to just implement the > promise to come out of the current situation. illumos never made any promises to you, so when this "promise" further implicitly exempts you from the current contribution process, it's a non-starter. In fact, Garrett does not have the authority to say that a contribution can bypass the contribution process, and such an exemption would violate the fundamental integrity of the process. If it's "simple", it's as simple as that, and this isn't the first time this has been said directly--I could post the mail thread we had some time ago with the advocates list that went precisely to these points. Further, I checked the archives a year ago, and I don't recall finding any contribution you submitted to the community under the current process, only complaints about not being able to have work accepted by telephone call to Garrett immediately after the fork, while the process was still largely undefined. If you don't take the option to break the circle where it's available, that's the definition of what can be done and entirely up to you. The further hypothesis this suggests is that you have settled on fixating on this previous incident because the contradiction which has been brought to your attention in fact relieves you of dealing with or accepting any criticism of your work or forms of participation. I don't think you've attempted to address this fundamental contradiction when it's been brought to your attention: you continue to define equal treatment as preferential treatment in explicit violation of standards that apply to everyone else. You use the word collaboration a great deal--in the concrete practice of it for the illumos community, I think you either don't know what it means or are yourself averse to it. I do not know whether you aware of this evasion, but when you cast its lack of acceptance as a character deficit of others, I feel compelled to raise this publicly. Anyway, that you've replied to the first line of what I said and professed that you don't understand what's been said before that you very evidently don't want to hear, is a sign that this won't be a dialogue, which is an expected disappointment and already more than needs to be said. I appreciate that this is a difficult position for you, but as long as your basic premise for talking about this is that there's no problem on your end, this is going nowhere. Cheers, Bayard _______________________________________________ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
