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

Re: Candidate questions: expulsions process

MJ Ray wrote:

Benjamin Seidenberg <astronut@dlgeek.net> wrote:
Say (said, saying, says):
2. To express in words: Say what's on your mind.
3. a. To state as one's opinion or judgment; declare: I say let's eat out.
b. To state as a determination of fact: It's hard to say who is right in this matter..

Since you expressed your opinion in words, I think the use of the word \"said\" is quite proper

I disagree. Also, I think it would be better to use a dictionary
that shows whether the verb is transitive or intransitive for
each meaning, and state to which dictionary you are referring.

Any voices you heard reading debian-vote to you today
were not mine. If you can't distinguish between me and the voices
you hear reading debian-vote to you, please ask your doctor.
As a neutral party to this debate, I nonetheless think that such a insult, even if said jokingly and meant to be funny detracts from the value of open and productive discourse. Let us debate grand and noble ideas, not get bogged down in petty details.

In case you hadn't noticed, Matthew Garrett insults me in almost
every reply for months now. Why don't you ever complain about it?
If you wanted to debate grand and noble ideas, why not complain
about introduction of the off-topic wife-beating old chestnut?
I feel both of those detract from productive discourse more than
riffing on the low linguistic register of a message.

[Replied to above questions in private mail, as requested]

If you want to debate grand ideas: What role should
socio-religious views play in the Debian project?
Would using differences in beliefs about death
as a motive to call for expulsion (as threatened in
and explained in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00968.html )
be good for Debian if it happens? If it's OK to expel some DDs
for holding minority beliefs and therefore improve the cultural
homogeneity of the project, what beliefs should it be done for?
On Deaths? Births? Sexuality? Churches? Prayer? Business ethics?

I don't think personal beliefs should ever be a qualification or criteria for anything. Everyone is entitled to private thoughts. Expression and implementation of these views is subject to reactions by others. However, any action against someone should be based on their ACTIONS not the views that caused them. For example, let us consider a hypothetical DD who was strongly anti-Semetic (best example I could come up with at 1 AM). While I wouldn't want to be his/her friend (being Jewish, I doubt he/she would want to be mine), their view is their own, and the project has no right to punish them for it. That way leads to thought police. However, if their belief caused them to respond to every post to the list by someone who was Jewish or had a Jewish sounding name with flames, insults, threats or other such conduct, they should face some kind of disciplinary action (possibly leading up to expulsion). However, the disciplinary action should be for their conduct, not the reasons behind it. At least that's my view, poorly phrased as it is due to the late hour.

Replies to final paragraph to -project, please, else direct.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: