Re: Official Compliant

On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 13:02 +0100, Ross Golder wrote:
> That's just your interpretation of 'developer'. There are many
> interpretations of the work 'developer', as there are many
> interpretations of the word 'hacker'.

I am not interpreting anything. I just quoted what was written in the
Charta and which applies to everyone participating to GNOME. If I'd
listened to every stuff people write then we would end in x^n-1
interpretations of this.

> What are you trying to achieve here? You just want people to recognise
> that you think that Mark is 'behaving badly', or do you want someone to
> forcibly remove his list moderator privileges or something?

Yes he was behaving badly and no I'm not interested to force remove of
his moderator privileges. But moderator privileges is no permission for
him or anyone else to behave badly.

> OK, now we're ranting.
> Now you're twisting what Mark said again. He isn't trying to deny you
> any rights (except suggested that you should consider how you use your
> rights to post to desktop-devel-list). He's just trying to keep the
> noise down on an already busy mailing list.
> More ranting - now you appear to be generating noise on the foundation
> list.
> (snipped a load of irrelevant quoting to save bandwidth).

Where am I ranting ? I brought up a normal compliant which as I believe
was a good thing, I was told that the Foundation is not responsible for
this stuff and I quoted lines from the Charta that shows that they are
indeed repsonsible for these things. That's one of their work to take
care of in a growing community such as GNOME. It's not my fault that no
one ever bothered reading the Charta.

> At the end of the day, contributors are not employees. The foundation
> have no right to tell individuals what they can or can't do or say.
> These are free people. If you can make a good case for Mark being an
> irresponsible list moderator, make it here, and maybe someone else can
> take over that job (I don't expect Mark enjoys it). Otherwise, please
> just stick to contributing constructively.

Well this is not just about Mark and of course you are right that the
Foundation can not enforce anything. But it is a good thing to talk
about these problems once in a while to remind people about their
borders and limits.

There are plenty of people writing to the desktop-developers-list who
are not even doing development on GNOME at all, those haven't received
such an ugly reply - but this is most likely due to their general high
reputation in the Linux community (one of them even participated in
writing this Charta).

I do hope you understand the point here. I want to continue writing and
replying to a mailinglist and to comments that I like to answer on
without getting annoyed with such an attitude.

My reply to Eugenia about the GNOME HIG (how can this be offtopic) was
quite ok and contained my own opinion why I believe that it is a bad
thing to enforce the GNOME HIG towards other communities. The context
was right, the mailinglist was right my reply is my right. It was so
since I joined GNOME around 1999 and I don't know that we elected
someone to change rules and dictatorship on that. All I know about is
that several people raised an opinion whether the mailinglists could be
reduced so people stop Carbon Copy'ing stuff across all types of lists.
Till today nothing has changed here. Enforcing rules to participants in
such a manner and such a way will make the mailinglist become more than
quiet pretty damn soon - count my word on it.

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