Re: "Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge" or "Debian commits suicide"
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:35:12PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I do have a problem with the people who held that view even *after* it
> was explained to them, in great detail, why it was simply not a viable
> interpretation of the English meaning of the Social Contract. And this
> included AJ. He was deluding himself. He deliberately ignored not only
> the views of debian-legal, the writer of the Social Contract, a straw
> poll of DDs, a straw poll of users, but also the many clear and coherent
> arguments. He didn't give rational arguments in reply; he gave claims
> that he knew better, and that he had the power, as well as the
> (demonstrated false!) claim that this was what the Social Contract had
> always meant.
What is your main goal here, Nathanael? Being right?
>From where I sit, AJ was guilty of the crime of pragmatism. Debian had
always been full of non-free stuff, so much that it would take years to
get rid of it all. The people that wrote the Social Contract nevertheless
shipped tons of documentation with terms far more restrictive than the
GFDL (including much material that did not give permission for any changes
at all); people who look at actions rather than words would naturally
assume that this inconsistency wasn't considered terribly important.
(I fully agree with the debian-legal gang that the GFDL must be changed, BTW).
Now, let's suppose that I stipulate that AJ was wrong. Evidently that's
not enough for you; you insist that we further accept that he was deluded,
incoherent, you name it.
> AJ's attitude towards his "interpretation" of the Social Contract
> appeared to be that of someone who didn't *want* to see the
> inconsistencies in his viewpoint; that is hypocrisy.
Oh, and a hypocrite as well. In a sense; you're right; you place
consistency above all other values, so people who are willing to make the
necessary compromises to get work done look like hypocrites to you.
Interestingly, though, the reason that everyone is crapping on AJ now
is that he's come around to your point of view! That is, he now proposes
to be consistent, and the result is, of course, that he can't violate the
Social Contract by shipping sarge according to the current plan.
> > The recent vote has now
> > established that the majority view is the project-official view.
> > Try
> > being gracious in victory.
> The other view fell into the "black is white" category, and does not
> deserve respect as a viewpoint. It's a viewpoint which can only be held
> by not understanding English, not paying attention, or deluding oneself.
> I find it difficult to be gracious about people who deliberately refuse
> to listen to reason.
And yet you are applying to work with these people that you say do not
deserve respect, and that you find it difficult to be gracious to. Get
over yourself.
> None of them have actually changed, except one: he had wiggle room
> because he was deluding himself, refusing to understand English, or not
> paying attention, and he isn't anymore.
Wow. You don't intend to let up, do you? Even if you're right, is it
really wise to repeatedly go on saying it and saying it until AJ, as well
as who knows how many other developers, is too demoralized to bother with
this crap anymore?
I suppose Debian is a big enough project that it can cope with having
members who bitterly fight and who totally disrespect each other.
> It's extremely poor timing on AJ's part to "see the light" now. One
> with a more hostile viewpoint than mine might suspect it of being
> deliberate sabotage.
If you ever need a new job, there's a guy named Karl Rove who might want
to hire you for that line. Slime your political opponent by suggesting
something really evil about him, but avoid making the charge directly.
> If he had changed the policy to match the majority
> view months ago (since it was pretty clearly the majority view months
> ago), people would have been working on the ensuing problems *then*
> rather than now.
Debian has over 900 developers, and those active on debian-legal form a
far smaller number. Without a vote, claims as to what the majority view
is are suspect. The vote changed matters, and that adequately explains
the timing.
> I was just trying to explain why AJ was acting like a nut. Sorry; I
> withdraw my attempt at explanation.
Wow.
> If he quits, someone will step up to replace him; of that I am certain.
> Whether someone is a fool merely because they choose to be RM, I will
> not attempt to judge.
Wow again. "deluded". "nut". "suspect ... deliberate sabotage".
> If you're going to require a standard of civility, you had better expel
> AJ immediately; look at his history. And some other DDs, most likely.
> (So I don't recommend it.)
Certainly AJ could be more civil himself.
But sorry, I can't find anything that rises to the level of your offenses.
Harsh words in a flame war don't rise to the level of your repeated
attacks on someone's personal character.
Debian will have to decide whether your conduct is acceptable; similar
conduct on the GCC lists, though (repeated and unrelenting attacks on the
RM), would get you banned.
Reply to: