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

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

On 3/28/21 5:55 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "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.

An official Debian statement is not about any particular individual but
about Debian's interests and goals. We should strive on principles of
equality, inclusion and enhance the sense of belonging of our every
member while preserving Debian's reputation. This actually means that we
have to carefully choose our words and hold ourselves to a higher
standard at least when composing an official Debian statement. There is
no space for emotional revenge punches in the name of Debian.


Reply to: