[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: apologies and summary. was: Where is Debian going?

On Fri, 2002-07-12 at 17:04, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> I'm not berating him for seeing things differently.  I'm calling him on his
> double-speak.  He claims to apologize, and then rips into the developer
> community for being complacent.  This is not merely a friendly exchange of
> ideas, it is both hostile and a distortion of the truth.

Is there any other way his text could have been interpreted? I found it
easy not to interpret it literally. I also found it quite natural to
interpret it as a tongue-in-cheek comment.
It certainly was no personal attack on anyone.

> While there is no rule, keeping the signal-to-noise ratio on this list as
> high as possible is certainly worth fighting for.  My first note was far
> more polite and merely mentioned that he should have looked at the archives
> first.  There is no point covering the same ground over and over again with
> nothing new injected into each discussion.

I completely agree. I also think this is something that the participants
on this list have to cope with because user feedback is a natural thing.
It is also natural to post again with further explanations if you sense
you have been misunderstood - which is exactly what most people will
sense when bringing this topic up on this list for their first time.

Searching the archives would perhaps give a lot of useful background
information on what has been discussed, but since the issue is not
"fixed" (users still perceive the problems and issues mentioned), the
posts would come in anyway. The thought of reaching a conclusion is
tempting enough to post even though others have tried before.

> And his sarcastic accusations are polite?

I think they were not meant to hurt anyone. In any case, the prologue of
his text was not important. He gave feedback for those interested. That
should be regarded as a valuable contribution and be encouraged. Perhaps
a better forum could be appointed - in this case, it should be
advertised widely.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: