On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 10:43 PM Alexandre Oliva <ol...@gnu.org> wrote: > > On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zane...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > All the other active maintainers suggested you shouldn't have done that, > > but you > > ignored it anyway. > > How could I possibly have ignored something that hadn't happened yet? > > > *we* glibc maintainers were fully aware that it was *you* that decided > > to act in that way > > There have been plenty of insinuations that contradict that assumption > and attempted to somehow blame it on RMS, but whether the record has > been set straight on this point now, or if it was straight already, the > point stands.
No, you are insinuating that the glibc community both as maintainer and contributors acted in a hateful way regarding the 'joke' removal. Sorry, but this is not true; there were messages that might be characterized as such but they did not come from either of main glibc developers or maintainers. > > As recently as a couple of weeks ago someone referred, in this list, to > RMS's voicing his objection to the removal of one of the many pieces he > wrote for the glibc manual, and then setting out to propose and discuss > policies that incided on the matter, as if those were horrible actions. > > That was almost as abhorrent as his asking a GNU developer a question > that he could have answered by just downloading the subproject's source > code and looking for the answer himself! Oh, the horror! > > > If that's not hatred, I don't really wish to know what is :-/ The main idea, which I was vocal about and shared with some glibc developers and maintainers, was that the "joke" has no place in a technical manual. You might disagree ideological and politically from this assessment, but this it is not "hatred" and this very rhetoric is trying to characterize it as such is what made me see that discussion as frustrating and disappointing.
