Re: push back on negative articles

[Larry Cafiero <larry cafiero gmail com>]

On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Olav Vitters <olav vitters nl> wrote:

>
> I didn't imply he was a troll. I've already stated he is a troll.

And by most people's definition of the word, you'd be wrong in calling
him that. Where's that Code of Conduct when you need it?

>> Again, I disagree. I would be willing to bet that Bruce has better
>> things to do with his life than stir up controversy.
>
> Could you expand on this?

No, because I'm not Bruce Byfield. I am sure he has a life, tends to
day-to-day issues and has better things to do than make your life
difficult.

>
>> > I'm not sure what the right approach is, but I think you should be
>> > careful. It is quite easy to spin any response as e.g. 'GNOME doesn't
>> > like to hear the truth'.
>>
>> Arguably, there are many things in this article that GNOME folks
>> should ask themselves, assuming that Byfield is right in at least some
>> points in his commentary; to say nothing of working under the
>> assumption that nothing -- not even GNOME -- is perfect. One
>> observation right off the bat: I can't use GNOME 3 due to hardware
>> limitations, and personally I feel that having to use the "fallback
>> mode" is the digital equivalent of being forced to sit at the back of
>> the bus (an analogy that's probably only understood by Americans, but
>> for the rest of you it goes back to racial inequality in the US up to
>> the 1960s when non-whites had to sit in the back of the bus). I don't
>> think I'm the only one who feels that way.
>
> I find this comparison over the top offence.
>
> I urge you to read https://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct

I don't. Here's why: People who are unable to use GNOME 3 and must use
the "Fallback Mode" -- seriously, is that the best name you could come
up with? -- arguably are second-class citizens because they do not
enjoy the same rights and privileges as GNOME 3 users. If you're
offended, that's tough. But that's how it is.

I read the code of conduct and I don't think it violates it. Maybe you
should read it yourself.

> I said that inaccurate or intentionally misleading. Or in plain word:
> the site lies.

And again I would say you were wrong, and I'm sure thoughtful members
of this mailing list deal in reality.

> Your response is: 'look into the mirror'.
>
> I don't see how these thing relate.

Pity. Anyway, you're welcome.

Larry Cafiero