Re: Good manners, Good tone and welfare of DD's, NM and prospective developers
Dmitrijs Ledkovs a écrit :
> So for example to analyze this email [1]
> It meets mailing list code of conduct but I would consider this email
> a bit rude for a public mailing list.
That email apparently happens in a quite "hot" discussion (some would
call this a flamewar) where, apparently the person who's answered by the
mail already obviously exxagerated in many ways.
Moreover, apart from a quite imperative "shut up" (which is obviously
what the other person *really should do*), I don't really consider the
mail that rude but more some direct style which most people in Debian
lists are used to. Moreover, when the person writing all this has the
credit Steve has in the project, I think that one can legitimately
assume that bringing him to such 'drastic' public statement proves that
things went quite far already earlier.
moreover, -legal is very prone to such hot discussions when hairy topics
are discussed.
> Now compare the message [1] to the one of the ubuntu code of conduct
> reminders [3] this is the point I guess I'm trying to make. Shall I
I don't really see the relation between [1] and [3]. Are you suggesting
that someone should send to the author of [1) a reminder such as [3]?
Believe me, that would trigger a giant laugh among the Debian community..:-)
> file a wishlist bug against mailing-list virtual package w.r.t. code
> of conduct?
I don't really see any point in doing this.
>
>
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/05/msg00077.html
>
> [2] http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=shit
> site:lists.debian.org&hl=en&sa=N&output=search&tbs=rcnt:1&tbo=1
I'm note sure what this is meant to prove. That "shit" is often used in
Debian mailing lists? Well, I would just say that this is just a proof
that we're real people who are using real language...:-)
So, really, while I personnally try to avoid being rude and aggressive
in mailing lists (and sometimes miserably fail in this), I don't really
see what problem you're trying to solve, here.
Reply to: