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

Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter

>>>>> "Jonas" == Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> writes:

    Jonas> Quoting Pierre-Elliott Bécue (2021-03-28 20:31:01)
    >> Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 � 14:04:48+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a
    >> �crit�: > My involvement in this subthread was when Molly arguing
    >> that the > accusation was not harmful (using other words, yes,
    >> and we can > nitpick that if really necessary).  You (and others,
    >> privately) > agree that the accusations are deliberately harmful
    >> but that the > harm cannot backfire on Debian.  I have raised my
    >> concerns - I rest > my case.
    >> Accusations are generally harmful, and as accusations are always
    >> delibeately made, they indeed tend to be deliberately harmful.
    >> That does not mean they are not warranted. And I think it is that
    >> point that could/should be discussed.

    Jonas> Text #1 oncludes an accusation.  Other proposed texts does
    Jonas> not.

    Jonas> I think the relevant thing to discuss is not if the
    Jonas> accusation embedded in text #1 is warranted, but instead if
    Jonas> that accusation is necessary.  Is the accusation needed for
    Jonas> that proposal?  It seems to me that the message would be the
    Jonas> same with that accusation omitted, but maybe I am missing
    Jonas> something.

There were a lot of messages here, and I may have missed some.

When I last paid attention to this, you were concerned about whether the
letter was an attempt at public shaming.
As a personal choice, I reject shaming fairly strongly.
But now somehow the discussion has moved on to whether  the accusation
in the letter is necessary and whether Debian risks  legal issues by
signing on.

The legal question is not interesting to me; I think the risk to Debian
is one I'm quite willing to accept.

But the shaming question is interesting to me (at least under my fairly
narrow definition of shaming).
I'd like to see if I'm understanding your argument.

Are you saying that by making an unnecessary accusation we would be
And so you'd like to understand whether the accusation is necessary to
understand whether we are shaming?


Reply to: