Thomas Anderson wrote: > Steven J Long wrote: >> Denis Dupeyron wrote: >> >> > This list is for technical discussions only. >> I look forward to the day when that actually happens, and we are not >> regaled with countless emails about "technical issues" that were solved 3 >> years ago, accompanied by juvenile insults at anyone who might disagree. >> > > Speaking of juvenile insults, your last mails concerning my summary have > had their fair share of insults towards me(all unfounded and ridiculous). > Would you please stop that? > I still can't see any insults; I was actually doing my best to give you the benefit of the doubt. Clearly you are fairly immature, based on my interaction with you over the last 3 years, and you did indeed take part in a concerted political action, which was not at all what it was claimed to be.
>> > Also, public mailing-lists >> > are not for discussing your personal issues. >> > >> It wasn't my personal issue; it was about an inaccurate summary and a >> Council member blatantly lying and using his position for partisan aims. > > The summary was not innacurate; If someone is banned, I put down the > reason given _at the time_ for the banning. That seems fairly > straightforward. There is nothing biased(or anything deserving being > called a 'lie') in that summary You weren't the Council member referred to. You really don't appear to have considered my point of view very much. <snip> > I do my best at professional journalism(I am an amateur however) and your > remarks to the contrary show you haven't given thought to how much time > and effort I spend at making it unbiased and accurate. > You need to think about not simply putting one side of a story in order to maintain the appearance of impartiality. Which, as you took part in the politicking, you didn't have in any case. As for your time and effort, you put that in because you want to. While I appreciate it, I also appreciate how much time and effort everyone else puts in too; most especially the users without whom nothing would get done. >> You can keep on doing things badly all you like; just expect to get >> picked up on it when you summarise it inaccurately in the archives. > > See above, especially the part saying "for what he called". >> I was answering the "censor him!" tendency that is so prevalent when Gentoo devs are being picked up on their behaviour and so reviled when it means disallowing constant poisonous trolling. IIRC the argument is that "it reads like 'lex ciaran'"; perhaps that's more an indication of how trollish ciaran actually behaves than a direct attack on him. The question is: if we're discussing someone else, would you allow that behaviour? Given the treatment I've had meted out for a lot less egregious insults, and never casually dropped into everyday discourse, the answer clearly is "No." So again, we come round to why ciaran is allowed to act in ways that no-one else is, despite having been kicked out twice. Frankly I don't care what the reason is; just don't pretend the CoC or any of the other rules you(collectively) have are anything more than a fig-leaf to doing w/e tf you want in any event. I mean now you're even arguing the Developer Council should allow non-devs to sit on it (and as ever it's simply to have an exception for ciaran, as his work is such a shining example.. no wait, it's evidently *not* that great. Why are we doing this again?) >> Or like, y'know, put your house in order/ keep that crap outta the >> archives. I don't have any more to say on it, but feel free to keep the >> flamefest going amongst yourselves. > > See above. > Ditto. >> Certainly seems to be what you're best at, after all. Ah oh yes, you're >> the person who stated user-rel wanted Council to review the decision, >> which they said they did not. Curious that you should ignore all the >> points about process and try to make out this is my "personal" issue and >> not an issue of borked process. > > I believe the Council was deciding only on what to do in #-council which > is as stated their turf. Any userrel issues are probably separate to this > problem. > Hmm firstly I was directly addressing one individual about his actions. He raised it; either let him answer as to his intent, or speak for yourself. Perhaps you should re-read and reconsider the process in light of what you now know about userrel not once requesting Council to review, but only for the ban to be rescinded. There certainly was no need for it to be discussed in full open Council like that, apart from trying to embarrass me and force a decision on the userrel bug in the wrong forum (while quietly ignoring the actual background to same.) >> >> As stated, summarise correctly, and even better, follow a more >> professional process, and this sub-topic would never have been raised. > > See above. > >> As it is, this is >> about the level of debate I expected; blame the messenger, and avoid our >> own problems. I am glad there's an election on. > > So am I, but your slandering of my platform is not appreciated at all. > Please make it clear where I have lied at all. As stated you did take part in a concerted political end-run around the devrel and userrel procedures. I've tried to take that as your ignorance of the situation; if you're saying you were fully cognizant of the process, then you have changed in the last 3 years even more than I thought. You really should consider the totality of what the other person is saying before you libel them. As I did in #-devrel AND #-userrel, I'd like to drop this now. As stated it was only about getting my side of events on the record, since I was given no opportunity in #-council and indeed zero warning that it was coming. If that is so hard to comprehend, might I suggest some downtime, as you sound quite burnt-out to me. I'll only respond to substantively new issues, and if it all possible I won't be responding on this thread again. If that offends, it's not intended. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
