On Wednesday, 7 April 2021 11:22:27 AM AEST Russ Allbery wrote:
> PS: I would not consider such a letter to be "aggression against the
> project" in any meaningful way, and thus also don't agree with the subject
> line of this thread.
In this case I'd say you are wrong.
Telling another project, on behalf of the entire organisation, that their
leader is unworthy is an act of aggression because it implies that
* they need external advise in a form of petition (or worse)
* the project is unable to govern itself properly
* the people deserve the (bad) leader they've elected
* community that made bad decisions is out to be shamed
* leader himself is smeared with long list of accusations
* leader is beyond hope, worthy of no rebuttal or pardon
All of those implied messages are beyond criticism. I'd call it "passive
aggressive" except that there is nothing "passive" in public accusations of
impropriety, however politely they are expressed.
Here is the less hypothetical example: our current GR not merely calls
leader "unworthy" but calls for his resignation (choice 2), together with
entire board of directors (choice 1), with refusal to cooperate until our
demands are met (choice 3). An undeniable aggression.
--
All the best,
Dmitry Smirnov
GPG key : 4096R/52B6BBD953968D1B
---
The relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion. The law is
no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and
how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If
large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be
freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is
sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to
protect them.
-- George Orwell
---
COVID-19: Majority testing positive have no symptoms.
-- https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/july-august-2020/ignoring-the-covid-evidence/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.