Re: Social Committee proposal
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 02:42:23PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > See, this is part of the problem: every time, and I do mean *every*
> > time, anyone want to discuss the possibility of actually doing
> > something about the abusive communication culture in Debian, there
> > pops up people who loudly reject any changes. They (and you're
> > usually one of them) say that it will be a violation of free speech,
> > or will turn Debian into Disneyworld, or Teletubby land, or
> > whatever.
>
> Your problem is that unlike Josip and Raphael, you are unable
> to brook any criticism whatsoever. They listened to me, corteously,
> were not swayed, and managed to convince me to go along with the
> experiment.
>
> You, however, expect there to be no expression of isgivings,
> or anything -- just arh rah rah all along.
Well, for the record, I don't think that he was all that negative in the
thread. He was argumentative, but not obstructive.
I think there needs to come a time in every thread where we just acknowledge
and enumerate differences in opinion, and stop it, because going further
just makes us all repeat things.
(/me ponders the idea of having a web interface to the mailing list where
we could have a wiki about each major thread...)
> > There is no need to become a Disney movie. There is no *intention*
> > of becoming anything even like a Disney movie. I said the "don't
> > swear" rule was an example and that it was not my intention to make
> > up one. Yet you immediately pounce on that and use it as a stick to
> > beat down any proposal for change.
>
> And I said that the fear I have (just look at the code of
> conduct someone already came up with -- cloyingly sweet and dainty and
> meant for saints, not human beings). I think I have precedence on my
> side.
Er, this is a moot point. I think that we didn't cover this bit so far very
much.
Where exactly in the Debian Project do we have a 'disneyland', and where do
we have people forcing other people to abide by their unfounded social
norms? We have precedents for the same things in the real world, yes. Okay.
That point is fully acknowledged. In the Debian world, I don't really recall
those things. It's more often that people break a modicum of social norms in
order to flame, prove a point, or something.
Amusingly enough, I do recall one instance where you wanted my packages to
be non-compliant with policy because I didn't write my debian/rules files in
make syntax. The policy manual now actually says that I'm breaking the
rules, but nobody is enforcing it on me. And we seem to be getting along
just fine :)
> > Is that the level of discourse you want to engage in?
>
> No, but it does seem to be your level, which you do
> effectively hide very well most of the time.
Okay, Lars, Manoj, please let's stop there. The misdirected swearing,
and the implication that abusiveness is being hidden, are simply wrong.
Let's go back to assuming good faith and keeping it civil.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: