Sriram Ramkrishna <sri <at> ramkrishna.me> writes: > > There was nothing more damaging than Company's post which is still quoted > even today. Benjamin even today said that nobody refuted his "staring at the > Abyss" post. So his Benjamin's post true? Because people are still talking > about it and referencing it. It was gift that continues to keep on giving. > What Benjamin posted was totally fine by me, he has a right to air his > concerns in public. It is a public project after all. > The general response I got to that post was either no response at all, talking behind my back about what what a bad person I am (at least that's what others told me) or - and this was the most concerning response for me - "You shouldn't say things like that." And that response came multiple times from very different GNOME contributors. So the lesson I learned back then is that rule number 1 about the GNOME project is that you don't talk about the GNOME project.
Fwiw, I still don't think Emily should characterize me as "break[ing] API’s at random" and "purposefully ensuring that [..] themes cease to work", but I think she has all the right in the world to do that as long as I get the right to use my choice words to answer to that. I'd rather have her calling me that than nobody saying anything at all. > I can understand that their intentions are noble, but the last time someone > took their chances we ended up with: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME#cite_note-6 > Fun fact: I didn't know I ended up on Wikipedia (Someone should file a bug against Wordpress' pingback feature). Isn't it discouraged to cite blogs on Wikipedia? [1] :) Benjamin 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list