Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:34:48AM +0100, Steven J Long wrote: Thomas Anderson wrote: Steven J Long wrote: Denis Dupeyron wrote: This list is for technical discussions only. I look forward to the day when that actually happens, and we are not regaled with countless emails about technical issues that were solved 3 years ago, accompanied by juvenile insults at anyone who might disagree. Speaking of juvenile insults, your last mails concerning my summary have had their fair share of insults towards me(all unfounded and ridiculous). Would you please stop that? I still can't see any insults; I was actually doing my best to give you the benefit of the doubt. Clearly you are fairly immature, based on my interaction with you over the last 3 years, and you did indeed take part in a concerted political action, which was not at all what it was claimed to be. There were no political actions ocurring, I was doing my job. As for insults, I was referring to: This is inaccurate, and to be frank, a lie. And sorry, tanderson, but consider my words of support for your campaign rescinded after the concerted nature of your part in the politicking. --- Not exactly an insult but sort of close considering it's not true; call it libel. You clearly have a year or two more of growing-up to do, minimum, AFAIC. Nice summaries though. Not exactly an insult though it was probably sarcastic. And of course the insult in the last mail you sent: Clearly you are fairly immature and ignoring the libel about political actions(which is both unsubstantiated and untrue). And other in general attitude problems against me. Also, public mailing-lists are not for discussing your personal issues. It wasn't my personal issue; it was about an inaccurate summary and a Council member blatantly lying and using his position for partisan aims. The summary was not innacurate; If someone is banned, I put down the reason given _at the time_ for the banning. That seems fairly straightforward. There is nothing biased(or anything deserving being called a 'lie') in that summary You weren't the Council member referred to. You really don't appear to have considered my point of view very much. So if I don't agree with you and stand up for the work I've put into something I merely haven't considered what you said? My work is on the line as is my image of journalism and I certainly double check everything to make sure I am not in the wrong. I do my best at professional journalism(I am an amateur however) and your remarks to the contrary show you haven't given thought to how much time and effort I spend at making it unbiased and accurate. You need to think about not simply putting one side of a story in order to maintain the appearance of impartiality. Which, as you took part in the politicking, you didn't have in any case. Please, point out *how* I politicked(especially in my summary). I think you'd be rather surprised at the outcome. Also point out how I could have been more impartial so I can improve my process. As for your time and effort, you put that in because you want to. While I appreciate it, I also appreciate how much time and effort everyone else puts in too; most especially the users without whom nothing would get done. You twisted that sentence of mine. I didn't say you should think twice about it being innacurrate because I put a lot of work into the summary, I said it because I had put a lot of work into trying to make it impartial. You can keep on doing things badly all you like; just expect to get picked up on it when you summarise it inaccurately in the archives. See above, especially the part saying for what he called. I was answering the censor him! tendency that is so prevalent when Gentoo devs are being picked up on their behaviour and so reviled when it means disallowing constant poisonous trolling. IIRC the argument is that it reads like 'lex ciaran'; perhaps that's more an indication of how trollish ciaran actually behaves than a direct attack on him. By that logic you should be silenced for what I know is trolling in this thread. Think it's fair? Certainly seems to be what you're best at, after all. Ah oh yes, you're the person who stated user-rel wanted Council to review the decision, which they said they did not. Curious that you should ignore all the points about process and try to make out this is my personal issue and not an issue of borked process. I believe the Council was deciding only on what to do in #-council which is as stated their turf. Any userrel issues are probably separate to this problem. Hmm firstly I was directly addressing one individual about his actions. He raised it; either let him answer as to his intent, or speak for yourself. Well considering you were replying to *me* on the list it is a logical deduction that you were talking to me. But sorry for that. Perhaps you should re-read
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009
Dear god, if you want argue to death do it in private. -A On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Thomas Andersongentoofa...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:34:48AM +0100, Steven J Long wrote: Thomas Anderson wrote: Steven J Long wrote: Denis Dupeyron wrote: This list is for technical discussions only. I look forward to the day when that actually happens, and we are not regaled with countless emails about technical issues that were solved 3 years ago, accompanied by juvenile insults at anyone who might disagree. Speaking of juvenile insults, your last mails concerning my summary have had their fair share of insults towards me(all unfounded and ridiculous). Would you please stop that? I still can't see any insults; I was actually doing my best to give you the benefit of the doubt. Clearly you are fairly immature, based on my interaction with you over the last 3 years, and you did indeed take part in a concerted political action, which was not at all what it was claimed to be. There were no political actions ocurring, I was doing my job. As for insults, I was referring to: This is inaccurate, and to be frank, a lie. And sorry, tanderson, but consider my words of support for your campaign rescinded after the concerted nature of your part in the politicking. --- Not exactly an insult but sort of close considering it's not true; call it libel. You clearly have a year or two more of growing-up to do, minimum, AFAIC. Nice summaries though. Not exactly an insult though it was probably sarcastic. And of course the insult in the last mail you sent: Clearly you are fairly immature and ignoring the libel about political actions(which is both unsubstantiated and untrue). And other in general attitude problems against me. Also, public mailing-lists are not for discussing your personal issues. It wasn't my personal issue; it was about an inaccurate summary and a Council member blatantly lying and using his position for partisan aims. The summary was not innacurate; If someone is banned, I put down the reason given _at the time_ for the banning. That seems fairly straightforward. There is nothing biased(or anything deserving being called a 'lie') in that summary You weren't the Council member referred to. You really don't appear to have considered my point of view very much. So if I don't agree with you and stand up for the work I've put into something I merely haven't considered what you said? My work is on the line as is my image of journalism and I certainly double check everything to make sure I am not in the wrong. I do my best at professional journalism(I am an amateur however) and your remarks to the contrary show you haven't given thought to how much time and effort I spend at making it unbiased and accurate. You need to think about not simply putting one side of a story in order to maintain the appearance of impartiality. Which, as you took part in the politicking, you didn't have in any case. Please, point out *how* I politicked(especially in my summary). I think you'd be rather surprised at the outcome. Also point out how I could have been more impartial so I can improve my process. As for your time and effort, you put that in because you want to. While I appreciate it, I also appreciate how much time and effort everyone else puts in too; most especially the users without whom nothing would get done. You twisted that sentence of mine. I didn't say you should think twice about it being innacurrate because I put a lot of work into the summary, I said it because I had put a lot of work into trying to make it impartial. You can keep on doing things badly all you like; just expect to get picked up on it when you summarise it inaccurately in the archives. See above, especially the part saying for what he called. I was answering the censor him! tendency that is so prevalent when Gentoo devs are being picked up on their behaviour and so reviled when it means disallowing constant poisonous trolling. IIRC the argument is that it reads like 'lex ciaran'; perhaps that's more an indication of how trollish ciaran actually behaves than a direct attack on him. By that logic you should be silenced for what I know is trolling in this thread. Think it's fair? Certainly seems to be what you're best at, after all. Ah oh yes, you're the person who stated user-rel wanted Council to review the decision, which they said they did not. Curious that you should ignore all the points about process and try to make out this is my personal issue and not an issue of borked process. I believe the Council was deciding only on what to do in #-council which is as stated their turf. Any userrel issues are probably separate to this problem. Hmm firstly I was directly addressing one individual about his actions. He raised it; either let him answer as to his intent, or speak for
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Alec Warneranta...@gentoo.org wrote: Dear god, if you want argue to death do it in private. But you see, the point is to argue in *public* so that you can show *everyone* who can last the longest in a shouting marathon! -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009
Thomas Anderson wrote: Steven J Long wrote: Denis Dupeyron wrote: This list is for technical discussions only. I look forward to the day when that actually happens, and we are not regaled with countless emails about technical issues that were solved 3 years ago, accompanied by juvenile insults at anyone who might disagree. Speaking of juvenile insults, your last mails concerning my summary have had their fair share of insults towards me(all unfounded and ridiculous). Would you please stop that? I still can't see any insults; I was actually doing my best to give you the benefit of the doubt. Clearly you are fairly immature, based on my interaction with you over the last 3 years, and you did indeed take part in a concerted political action, which was not at all what it was claimed to be. Also, public mailing-lists are not for discussing your personal issues. It wasn't my personal issue; it was about an inaccurate summary and a Council member blatantly lying and using his position for partisan aims. The summary was not innacurate; If someone is banned, I put down the reason given _at the time_ for the banning. That seems fairly straightforward. There is nothing biased(or anything deserving being called a 'lie') in that summary You weren't the Council member referred to. You really don't appear to have considered my point of view very much. snip I do my best at professional journalism(I am an amateur however) and your remarks to the contrary show you haven't given thought to how much time and effort I spend at making it unbiased and accurate. You need to think about not simply putting one side of a story in order to maintain the appearance of impartiality. Which, as you took part in the politicking, you didn't have in any case. As for your time and effort, you put that in because you want to. While I appreciate it, I also appreciate how much time and effort everyone else puts in too; most especially the users without whom nothing would get done. You can keep on doing things badly all you like; just expect to get picked up on it when you summarise it inaccurately in the archives. See above, especially the part saying for what he called. I was answering the censor him! tendency that is so prevalent when Gentoo devs are being picked up on their behaviour and so reviled when it means disallowing constant poisonous trolling. IIRC the argument is that it reads like 'lex ciaran'; perhaps that's more an indication of how trollish ciaran actually behaves than a direct attack on him. The question is: if we're discussing someone else, would you allow that behaviour? Given the treatment I've had meted out for a lot less egregious insults, and never casually dropped into everyday discourse, the answer clearly is No. So again, we come round to why ciaran is allowed to act in ways that no-one else is, despite having been kicked out twice. Frankly I don't care what the reason is; just don't pretend the CoC or any of the other rules you(collectively) have are anything more than a fig-leaf to doing w/e tf you want in any event. I mean now you're even arguing the Developer Council should allow non-devs to sit on it (and as ever it's simply to have an exception for ciaran, as his work is such a shining example.. no wait, it's evidently *not* that great. Why are we doing this again?) Or like, y'know, put your house in order/ keep that crap outta the archives. I don't have any more to say on it, but feel free to keep the flamefest going amongst yourselves. See above. Ditto. Certainly seems to be what you're best at, after all. Ah oh yes, you're the person who stated user-rel wanted Council to review the decision, which they said they did not. Curious that you should ignore all the points about process and try to make out this is my personal issue and not an issue of borked process. I believe the Council was deciding only on what to do in #-council which is as stated their turf. Any userrel issues are probably separate to this problem. Hmm firstly I was directly addressing one individual about his actions. He raised it; either let him answer as to his intent, or speak for yourself. Perhaps you should re-read and reconsider the process in light of what you now know about userrel not once requesting Council to review, but only for the ban to be rescinded. There certainly was no need for it to be discussed in full open Council like that, apart from trying to embarrass me and force a decision on the userrel bug in the wrong forum (while quietly ignoring the actual background to same.) As stated, summarise correctly, and even better, follow a more professional process, and this sub-topic would never have been raised. See above. As it is, this is about the level of debate I expected; blame the messenger, and avoid our own problems. I am glad there's an election on. So am I, but your slandering of my platform is not appreciated at all. Please
