> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 06:50
>
> On 1/20/01 2:45 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Maybe I was putting forth my opinion as well. Happens now and then. :)
We all are and that was never the question.
> ...
>
> However, I personally think it would be a shame to muzzle somebody
> for anything less than harassment that is probably legally
> prosecutable. If
> somebody threatens personal harm, then that's definitely over the line. So
> far though, we've been lucky enough to not see "I'm going to drive right
> over to your house and kick your ass" being stated on the mailing lists.
Then we have different opinions.
I think harassment and other behaviors can be too destructive for a
mailing list like this, way before you have to call the police. You _seem_
to think that while one as not to call the police everything is ok.
Obviously, no one ever talked about calling the police here. Fortunately, we
were always far from that.
> ... [a lot of stuff on the dial ins] ...
You are missing/going around the point.
Jon is fundamentally right about the dial in issue and after working to have
them available it is just natural he is disappointed with the level of
participation. Jon also made quite clear that the fears that there were not
enough lines were not excuse because, if people were interested, they should
try to make lists of intended participants and so on.
One message that Jon passes trough quite well is that people should take
initiative instead of complaining and I think he is fundamentally right.
Now, by fundamentally right I mean that the basic idea is perfect and that
the implementation is somewhat shity. In the case of dial ins, I think that
he should not reprehend specific people (as he did with me and others) for
not trying to dial in when he does not know shit about why we did not do it.
And I do _not_ intend to justify myself because it just isn't this list
business.
> > I also have no problem about the existence of cliques like the
> core Apache
> > team. Any organization needs a core and I think that this is a
> strong one.
> >
> > However, I think that this kind of clique must rule by example.
>
> s/must/should/ -- there's no onus enforced to make people in an
> open source
> project hold themselves and their behavior up to some sort of
> standard other
> than the fact that if people don't like that person or group of
> people, they
> can always fork away or do something else with their life. We do
> have a set
> of rules that admittedly needing some work. Right now, those
> rules don't say
> anything about "Rules of Conduct". Until they do, there is no
> "must" there.
IMHO, you are missing the point again.
I just replied non stop and point by point to Jon's postings as he often
does (without even getting, IMHO, as personal as he sometimes did).
* However, some people reprehended me and not him.
(And notice that I was doing this only with Jon.)
So, the point is:
* If some veterans wanted to stop this, they should have started by
reprehending Jon or both.
(That has to do to what I was calling "ruling by example".)
Besides, since there are no limitations to opinions in this list, I think
some of us are free to defend a minimum "standard" without having to fork
away, just as you are free to defend what you are defending.
> > Someone (more than once, different people) asked me to stop
> because I was
> > replying without quitting to anything Jon posted just as he was
> replying to
> > me (as you wrote, it takes two!).
> >
> > So, Jon and I were doing the same (bad) thing, but only I got
> reprehended
> > that time. Reprehending both (or none) would be a lot more coherent.
>
> Actually, I don't think I reprehended either of you. All I did was defend
> him a bit. And if he had stated that he thought that you were out of line
> with your postings, I probably would have flamed him a bit for that... As
> far as other people reprehending you, well, that's their business.
What I wrote does not have to do with your attitudes but with the questions
you raise.
Besides, Jon does not have to be defended from me. Not only because Jon is
a productive veteran and I am a no one here (although a noisy one). Also
because I respect his work and I already did learn a lot from him. I also
do not have a problem agreeing with (and sometimes supporting) many of the
things he proposes.
Besides, I can see that currently there is no flame war going on with Jon
on this list and he is doing very constructive work.
To use an euphemism, let's say we just had a (big) problem about
participation style.
> > I wanted to see how far this could go.
>
> I get the feeling that we have people "playing chess" with this sort of
> thing. I'm not happy about that feeling.
It was too primary to be called "playing chess". It was a reaction, almost
a reflex.
And it did happen because I was not happy about some of my feelings too.
Have fun,
Paulo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
