Re: [O] Org Community
Loyall, David david.loy...@nebraska.gov writes: FWIW, I believe that the org-mode community should do what we can to oblige Jambunathan's request, even if/when we're not legally required to do so. I think that we should do the same for any human who wants to withdraw from an endeavor. (Don't each of you feel that your code is a part of you?) Supposing that the group agrees that the code should be removed somehow, then at that point we can think about the most orderly way to do it. What happens, technically, if we mark it all as deprecated? I look at it this way. If I helped build a house for Habitat for Humanity, then a while later decided I didn't like what they stand for, do I have the right to go take out the beams I nailed into the structure? Dave
Re: [O] Org Community
March, 10 at 13:01 Scott Randby wrote: However, I am concerned about the future of org. There is one individual who is poisoning the atmosphere by engaging in unfair and unfounded name calling that simply should not be included in messages to this list. I think we should ignore him. I have wasted 30mn of my life reading his posts. He might be manic and will probably be embarrassed by his posts when he cools down. Now this person wants to take some of their contributions out of org. Wishful thinking. Since his code made it to emacs he has signed FSF paperwork. IANAL but I don't think it belongs to him anymore. -- Quantum dynamics are affecting the transistors -- BOFH excuse #70 I am listening to ZZ Top - La Grange.
Re: [O] Org Community
Thank you for writing that, Scott. On 3/10/13, Scott Randby sran...@gmail.com wrote: Last September, I attended a talk given by the lead developers of a prominent free software project. One of the developers spoke about the importance of maintaining a friendly community that does not drive people away. In particular, the developer emphasized that the community is more important than the code. The org community has been wonderful since I've started using org. My questions on even the most basic matters have been answered with respect and clarity. Even though I'm a mere user of org, I've never hesitated to participate in a discussion on the mailing list. However, I am concerned about the future of org. There is one individual who is poisoning the atmosphere by engaging in unfair and unfounded name calling that simply should not be included in messages to this list. Now this person wants to take some of their contributions out of org. The developer of the talk I attended called this tactic hostage taking and said that it is better for the community to let hostage takers go their own way. The project and community are more important than the code. The code can be written by others, or the community can decide to go in a different direction. Giving in to hostage takers leads to more hostage taking and the decline of the project. Many of the users of org find it to be irreplaceable. We don't want to see org fall apart because of dissension in the community. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have dissent and disagreement. No, those are essential for a vigorous and healthy project. It is hateful and untruthful personal attacks that we should not accept no matter how significant the code contributions of those making the attacks. Scott Randby -- The Kafka Pandemic: http://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com The disease DOES progress. MANY people have died from it. It attacks MANY body systems. ANYBODY can get it. There is NO hope without activist action. This means YOU.
Re: [O] Org Community
FWIW, I believe that the org-mode community should do what we can to oblige Jambunathan's request, even if/when we're not legally required to do so. I think that we should do the same for any human who wants to withdraw from an endeavor. (Don't each of you feel that your code is a part of you?) Supposing that the group agrees that the code should be removed somehow, then at that point we can think about the most orderly way to do it. What happens, technically, if we mark it all as deprecated? I hope this helps, Dave Loyall -Original Message- From: emacs-orgmode-bounces+david.loyall=nebraska@gnu.org [mailto:emacs-orgmode-bounces+david.loyall=nebraska@gnu.org] On Behalf Of Scott Randby Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:02 PM To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Subject: [O] Org Community Last September, I attended a talk given by the lead developers of a prominent free software project. One of the developers spoke about the importance of maintaining a friendly community that does not drive people away. In particular, the developer emphasized that the community is more important than the code. The org community has been wonderful since I've started using org. My questions on even the most basic matters have been answered with respect and clarity. Even though I'm a mere user of org, I've never hesitated to participate in a discussion on the mailing list. However, I am concerned about the future of org. There is one individual who is poisoning the atmosphere by engaging in unfair and unfounded name calling that simply should not be included in messages to this list. Now this person wants to take some of their contributions out of org. The developer of the talk I attended called this tactic hostage taking and said that it is better for the community to let hostage takers go their own way. The project and community are more important than the code. The code can be written by others, or the community can decide to go in a different direction. Giving in to hostage takers leads to more hostage taking and the decline of the project. Many of the users of org find it to be irreplaceable. We don't want to see org fall apart because of dissension in the community. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have dissent and disagreement. No, those are essential for a vigorous and healthy project. It is hateful and untruthful personal attacks that we should not accept no matter how significant the code contributions of those making the attacks. Scott Randby
Re: [O] Org Community
Scott Randby sran...@gmail.com writes: There is one individual who is poisoning the atmosphere by engaging in unfair and unfounded name calling that simply should not be included in messages to this list. The Internet wisdom (I mean, years of accumulated experience by lots of people) suggests that we completely ignore those who troll. This requires that we educate us, between ourselves, to ignore such people. They are fed by those who cannot resist replying to them. If none do, they usually disappear within a few months -- or a few years :-). Kill files (in email readers) are useful for ignoring poisoning people. Now this person wants to take some of their contributions out of org. This is in such circumstances that clear FSF assignments prove useful. I've seen this scenario repeating for other software, here and there, for years (I've been around for quite a while). People have opinions, that's OK. But when their way does not lead anymore, some of them attempt destruction, more or less progressively, by all means possible, psychological and technical. They only have the power we give them. When we get moved enough to reply, we give them power. Best is to ignore them, and learn to stay completely calm inside. See they are sick, do not get affected. Do not even attempt to heal them. If you do not have enough means of self-control and just cannot resist, then feed them privately, to spare the rest of the community. François
Re: [O] Org Community
Loyall, David david.loy...@nebraska.gov writes: the org-mode community should do what we can to oblige Jambunathan's request, even if/when we're not legally required to do so. I read you, but no, not in this case. (Don't each of you feel that your code is a part of you?) Yes, of course. However, when I put my own code under the GPL, and make my projects forkable, I really, really mean it. It did happen that I was not fully happy with the consequences, but not enough to kill my own generosity. If I ever change my mind, well, too late, and that's OK. I may act differently for the later code I'll write, but what is already given is well given. I might have been someone else when I gave it, before I changed. But as I'm not that another guy anymore, I should not claim anything about that previous me. Unless I'm pretty rotten, in which case I'm not even worth being listened to. Supposing that the group agrees that the code should be removed somehow, The only reason to remove code owned by the community would be that it is not pleasurable enough to maintain, then consequently gets obsolete and useless. If nobody cares about the code, it's a different story. François P.S. I only once advocated for the withdrawal of an FSF assignment, and I even got the related papers destroyed at the FSF headquarters. The related code was not so widely distributed that the withdrawal would really hurt people, and the requester was deeply polite and human in his way to explain his motivations. He was also well aware of the meaning of his previous commitment. So, it has been a pleasure for me, and everybody I contacted, to help. It was human on every side. Here, as far as humanity and politeness is concerned, one side is surely missing. Let's not spoil anymore time at that level, it would be a waste.
[O] Org Community
Last September, I attended a talk given by the lead developers of a prominent free software project. One of the developers spoke about the importance of maintaining a friendly community that does not drive people away. In particular, the developer emphasized that the community is more important than the code. The org community has been wonderful since I've started using org. My questions on even the most basic matters have been answered with respect and clarity. Even though I'm a mere user of org, I've never hesitated to participate in a discussion on the mailing list. However, I am concerned about the future of org. There is one individual who is poisoning the atmosphere by engaging in unfair and unfounded name calling that simply should not be included in messages to this list. Now this person wants to take some of their contributions out of org. The developer of the talk I attended called this tactic hostage taking and said that it is better for the community to let hostage takers go their own way. The project and community are more important than the code. The code can be written by others, or the community can decide to go in a different direction. Giving in to hostage takers leads to more hostage taking and the decline of the project. Many of the users of org find it to be irreplaceable. We don't want to see org fall apart because of dissension in the community. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have dissent and disagreement. No, those are essential for a vigorous and healthy project. It is hateful and untruthful personal attacks that we should not accept no matter how significant the code contributions of those making the attacks. Scott Randby
Re: [O] Org Community
Scott Randby srandby at gmail.com writes: However, I am concerned about the future of org. There is one individual who is poisoning the atmosphere by engaging in unfair and unfounded name calling that simply should not be included in messages to this list. Now this person wants to take some of their contributions out of org. The developer of the talk I attended called this tactic hostage taking and said that it is better for the community to let hostage takers go their own way. The project and community are more important than the code. The code can be written by others, or the community can decide to go in a different direction. Giving in to hostage takers leads to more hostage taking and the decline of the project. I'm inclined to agree with this. I don't feel like hesitating to name names. Jambunathan: Whatever offense was done to you, it remains true that ego-validation often (perhaps even usually) does not go along with accomplishing goals. I would like to be sympathetic to the injustice you feel. This is difficult when your approach to the problem is to hold your ego to be more important than the goal. So what is the point here? If the point is to have well-functioning HTML, ODT and freemind exporters (and, secondarily, to enjoy knowing that you made, or helped to make, that happen), I think that's a worthy goal which the org community should support. If this is your goal, surely it can't be lost on you that your actions are impeding that goal. If, on the other hand, your goal is to prove that you are an Important Person (and secondarily to contribute to org), then your actions are consistent with that goal. However, I think the org community would not be well-served by catering to your ego demands. I contribute code and documentation to SuperCollider (an audio programming language). When I check in new content, I consider it a way to thank other developers who wrote code that I'm glad I didn't have to write myself. I don't expect credit and I don't expect my contributions to be inviolable entities that nobody should touch. It's not about ownership. It's about making a software environment that works better for people. The org community functions on the same principle, and I think it's correct that this community should not cave in to a diva's temper tantrums. hjh
