Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

[Philip Van Hoof <pvanhoof gnome org>]

On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 17:39 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:

> 2010/3/2 Philip Van Hoof <pvanhoof gnome org>
>         
>         > Stop dragging the GNOME Foundation list down these off topic
>         > roads and stop this pissing contest. 

>         I think you, and many other people, are misinterpreting this
>         as a pissing contest. It's not. It's a quite serious debate.
>         
>         And I think it's insulting of you to call it a pissing
>         contest.
>         
>         If you don't like the debate, then why aren't you simply
>         ignoring us?

> Philip, I think a lot of people are saying they'd rather not see these
> arguments on the Foundation list.

And they are probably right.

I wonder why *nobody* so far is going into the things that I said in my
last reply, but why everybody so far is instead going into this.

Anyway (really, it's fine for me. You hate it more than I do)

Thing is, that I really want the GNOME Foundation to take a stance on
these matters. Rather than continuing to ignore it. I want it to stop
hiding. To stop being afraid.

It might be surprising, but I'm pro a strong GNOME Foundation.

> We've had several threads in the past month that go on and on without
> being productive at all and you are one of the most frequent posters
> to each of them.

Each of the threads had a different nuance.

That I'm one of the most frequent posters just means that I "voice" my
opinion.

Luis's text is vague about this, but it does allow the Foundation's
members to give their opinion:

http://www.co-ment.net/text/141/ (I'm using the last version here)

"The intent of the Membership is to provide the opportunity for all
 contributors to have a place and a voice in the GNOME foundation."

> I believe the way you respond often takes the thread off topic and
> turns it argumentative.

Everybody has believes. Good for you.

> When I've asked in the past, you've been good about stopping the
> personal insults.

I tried. Thanks for acknowledging this.

> Now I'm asking you to seriously consider each post you make to the
> Foundation list and ask yourself whether each part contributes
> productively to the conversation.

When a person is saying that programmers "often" forget about ethical
values like freedom, he's saying things about the morality of said
programmers.

I'm such a programmer. Imagine that he would have said:

"Women often forget about ethical values like freedom"

Do I really have to illustrate how certain feminists within GNOME would
likely respond to that?

I'm willing to let go of this part of the debate. I'm not willing to
accept the insult. Not ever.

Why didn't the GNOME Foundation take a stance on that?

It's your responsibility, Stormy.

My opinion might not be popular, but this is what we expect.

> For example, the three sentences I quoted above do not contribute in
> any way to the conversation. They start an argument with J5. If you
> want to argue with people, take it off list.

You might be right about the last three sentences.

But why didn't you said the same thing to John who accused me of turning
this into a "pissing contest"?

I didn't formulate this term. I'm responding to it.

Wasn't that formulation starting an argument with me?

And how wasn't it? If it wasn't.




Cheers,

Philip


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be