Hi Jing Luo, (I'm afraid I'm too ignorant of Chinese names to make an informed guess as to which is your surname. I'm sorry about that.)
At 2024-03-02T22:31:04+0900, Jing Luo via Discussions among Savannah Hackers, open subscription wrote: > The problem is not Savannah having a strict screening process. The > problem is not how people fail to submit packages that satisfy the > hosting requirements. Okay. > The problem is not the percentage of submissions that were cancelled. Then why bring up an (unsupported) statistic observing that 90% of them were cancelled? If 99% of all submissions were for proprietary software, a 90% rejection rate would indeed indicate a problem, but an altogether different one. > The problem is how the replies to the submitters were written, > especially the comments I quoted. They can be described as repulsive, > odious, off-putting. I guess they _can_ be, since you just did. I don't find these adjectives to be fairly applied. They were terse and direct. That is not the same as any of the foregoing... > There is no good reason to write rude comments ...nor the same as rude. That said, courtesy is an intersubjective thing with strong cultural components. So people can and do disagree about whether it is present, and in what degree. Here's an example of some applicable academic research. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=gbl > like those just because someone failed to demonstrate their basic > understanding of copyright. If a submitter fails repeatedly or for a long period to acquire an understanding of some factor that is essential to a project's acceptance in Savannah, then their submission cannot succeed. Could you draft a template for a rejection/cancellation message that would be sufficiently polite, in your view? Maybe future communications can be based on that, with tuning to particular circumstances of course. > We'd be better off closing group registration completely and > saving everyone's time, rather than leading people to assume Savannah > hackers are mean, cold-blooded, unreasonable monsters. If they are in fact mean, cold-blooded, unreasonable monsters, then it is a failure of candor on our part to represent otherwise. ;-) I'm not clear on who exactly has responsibility for reviewing nongnu submissions to Savannah, but in my experience Ineiev and Bob have been unfailingly pleasant to work with. If Savannah's reputation is that it's a tight ship where one's project needs to be squared away and its personnel need to exhibit a high degree of competence and relevant knowledge to get their submission approved, then that's not necessarily a bad thing. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
