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

Re: Dealing gently with our peers (was: confusion about non-free)

On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 04:56:00PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 21:17:20 +0200
> Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> wrote:
> > Just to make it clear, please don't take it as if I were recriminating
> > something to you.  My understanding is that this problem is about general
> > perception and I don't think it's your fault in any way.
> I understand that it wasn't personal.  But neither did you consider the
> personal factors in any way.

I did.  It's obvious I didn't consider them well enough, but I assure you
when I added 'Friendly' there (which is not part of my usual signature) I was
considering the personal factors.

My message goes straight to the point and sounds harsh.  I realized this, but
I didn't think it would hurt your feelings.  It's my fault if it did, so in
general I'll try to be more careful in the future.

> No, it was not the kindest way you could.  A private email to me would
> have sufficed to correct the problem in my statement.  As you can see,
> I was prompt to issue a correction once I saw my error.

I thank you for that, but my concern was _not_ specificaly about your
statement.  Rather, I'm worried about this perception being the norm in
our community today.

> > But you have to see both sides of
> > things.  When I saw that mail, the first thing I think is the press will
> > pick it and announce to everyone that Lenny supports this hardware, with
> > the implicit assumption that we have dropped our ideals and joined the
> > non-free bandwagon (actually, this is still likely despite my reaction).
> So it was far more important to drag this out before the project as
> soon as possible than it was to consider your peer's feelings and
> privately contact him first to give him a chance to correct himself?

TBH, I didn't think about this option.  Now I see that it is what I should have
done.  Do you accept my apologise?

> The ideals you were defending here justified your means?

Maybe you won't believe this, but whereas I believe my ideals justify being
exposed _myself_ to public bashing, I don't think they justify exposing

Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."

Reply to: